The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
Since the foundation of this country its people have identified more with their State and local government than the Federal Government. The Federal Government is look upon with suspicion and distrust. When the Constitution of the United States was written, the Founding Fathers were very careful to create a government that will not dominate and obliviate the local governments. The Revolutionary War was indeed a Civil War fought against a tyrannical centralized government. The founders of this country wanted to be sure that this tyranny was not present in the laws and functions of this new nation.
In this sense, despite his return to ontology, Agamben is not a world away from poststructuralists and other discourse analysts. Agamben defines sovereignty mainly in terms of the exception. Sovereignty is constitutive of the state and of politics because it constitutes the political body by deciding who is to be incorporated into it. This decision is based on a fundamental exclusion of what is to remain outside. Sovereignty is more significance to the state
The period 1870 to 1900 was also characterized by the questioning of the classical assumption that the laissez-faire was an ideal government policy and the eventual demise of classical political economic theory and neo-classical political economics. This conversion was neither automatic nor spontaneous but it was critical for professionalization economics. Neo – classical political economics is attributed with incorporate the original classical cost of production theory with the usefulness in a bid to explain commodity and factor of prices and the allotment of resources using marginal analysis. Although David Ricardo furnish the methodology basics of neo- classical political economics. Alfred Marshall was regarded as the father of neo – classical economics and Marshall was credited with introduced the concept demand and supply, marginal utility, price elasticity of demand and cost of production.
A constitution in the modern sense is a document drafted in the name of the people to specify the relationship between government and citizen, to establish and regulate the powers of the main institutions of government, and to take effect as fundamental law. As a relevant concept to the constitution, constitutionalism, is, contrary to its original expression of limited government (negative constitutionalism), nowadays viewed as an extremely powerful form of legitimating extensive government with the contribution of its derivation from the idea of public service(positive constitutionalism), not from a theory of sovereignty . On the other hand, from a critical perspective, it is argued that modern discourses of popular or modern sovereignty (modern constitutionalism) can be anything other than a disguised form of absolutism which the discourse of constitutionalism is claimed to prevent. According to this perspective, both sovereignty remains a centralised power to command that is resistant to the democratic discourses, and constitutionalism is a largely ideological tool that purports to portray the location of power and control while in fact the modern form of domination is actually existent in less visible location . The power of narrative, symbol, ritual, theology and myth is evident in masking the dominance, creating its own political reality and forging normative constitution which does not reflects social constitution of a given society.
At the subnational level, administration and governance is guided by the constitution which defines the roles and duties of the executive (Richards, D. and Smith, M. 2002, 97). However it should be understood that the nation-state is not independent as it is prone to influence from globalization. Cultural values as well as political views held are likely to be influenced by interaction with other societies on the global platform. The composition and properties of nation-states is influenced by external growth, similarity and separation whereby one is likely to find that structure of governments within nation-states appears similar to other nation-states. It means that the organization of the political entities tend to be derived from another nation-state.
The Adam Smith problem related to what Foley calls “Adam’s Fallacy’ lies in that they both believe there is a contradiction of Smith’s idea about the pursuit of profits. Smith declared that the pursuit for self-interest will contribute to the development of the society, while he emphasized the role of sympathy in ethics. This is consistent with the “Adam’s Fallacy” that Smith has two standards in the economic and non-economic system. Smith indicated that the pursuit of self-interest may lead to ethical issues in the non-economic
In the words realists define national interest mainly in terms of whatever enhances or preserves a state 's security, influence, and its military and economic power. This does not mean that realists are amoral (Williams, 2004). Some argue that the highest moral duty of the state is to do good for its citizens while other realists argue that surviving in a dangerous world requires that morality be weighed wisely against national interest. There are many implications to the realists ' dark view of politics. One is that there is little hope for substantially reforming the anarchic international system.
Lapavitas (cited in Johnston and Saad-Filho, 2005) stated the neoliberal predominance in the economic theory began during the second half of the 1970s, and that the optimal organizing mechanism for capitalist economies is the dominant characteristic provided by free markets. The concept of neoliberalism has been heavily attached with the Washington Consensus (WC) and the practices of several international organizations such as World Bank, IMF and WTO (Fine and Saad-Filho, 2014). In order to establish the connection between the policies associated with neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus, it is important to highlight the three aspects of modern neoclassical theory. First, neoclassical theory implies that in the microeconomic level, the market is efficient whilst the state is inefficient, and thus; the market should be the one to address economic problems of development (Johnston and Saad-Filho, 2005). On the other hand, the second aspect assumes that capital mobility and the relentless advance of globalization are the main characteristics of the world economy at the macroeconomic level (Johnston and Saad-Filho, 2005).
The little that Gramsci did mention regarded his perception of International Relations as a direct subset of social relations, and so any developments in social structure would naturally impact the nature of relations amongst states.1 Neo-Gramscian theory places particular emphasis on the historical contextualization of events, in contrast to the traditional IR paradigm that modern events are capable of being analyzed in isolation from their historical elements. The key unit of analysis in neo-Gramscian terms is that of the “historic bloc”, a grouping cemented by a particular ideology perpetuated by the dominant class to