According to Dunn, Aknin & Norton (2008) it is not how much money is available but how the money is spent that has a positive effect on happiness. So they hypothesized that spending money on others increases happiness more than spending money on oneself. But how is it that people then do not change their behavior? This question was answered by a study that found people seem to believe that more money makes happier as well as personal spending is better for one than pro-social spending. That is why the researchers suggest
Checks and balances is when each branch of government has the ability to stop the other branches from doing things they do not agree with. “The consiant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other” (Madison, 1788). Checks and balances gives each branch a power to prevent the other 2 branches from having too much power. Checks and balances is another way the constitution guards against tyranny. The final way the constitution guards against tyranny is through big states vs. small states.
Macbeth Synthesis Essay Helen Keller once said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” This quote means that collaboration can lead to a more effective and productive society, rather than working alone and having a much less productive society. Is it better to have a more successful society or less successful society? The answer is obvious. Collaborative leadership is clearly much better than authoritative leadership. Authoritative leadership is less effective than collaborative leadership because fear and power create anarchy and dissent, while respect and decency create a harmonious society.
(Berman, P. (1994, April 25). Noblesse oblige. Forbes, 153(9), 96 Noblesse oblige in modern times is given that people in high status individuals tend to conceive of the current structure of society as fair and just, we expected that high status members of the U.S. house of representatives would be more likely to support economic inequality in their legislative behavior than would their low status counterparts. The people who are more fortunate to be born wealthy sometimes have to be thankful and help those in need. It is not their responsibility.
Democracy signifies participation of the people in the execution of their regime (Beramendi 2008). A democratic government is run by the people and its aim is public interest. Similarly, Backer and Raveloson (2008) explain democracy as a government which comes into power through general public, is practiced by the public and is there to work for the best interest of the public. Democracy can also be understood in opposition of other government systems; dictatorships, monarchies and aristocracies. In government systems, other than democracy, mostly, people have no or minute control over who will rule their state; contrarily, in democracy, people themself decide who will govern them or how their country will be run (Zimmermann 2012).
Aristotle’s politea is often mistranslated as ‘government’, but a more suitable translation is ‘regime’. He views polity as a combination of attributes from oligarchy and democracy. Democracy, in this case can be interpreted as mob rule, unlike modern democracy. According to Aristotle, there are two distinct classes, which cannot overlap; the rich and the poor. Thereby dividing the constitutions into oligarchy (rule of the rich) and democracy (rule of the poor).
According to the principle of redress, normative way of dealing with inequalities is to provide artificial advantages to those who are naturally disadvantaged over those who are better equipped for the struggle. The difference principle, on the other hand, prefers to enhance the situation of the disadvantaged not in comparative but in absolute terms. To provide better opportunities to the more advantaged is justified as long as those advantages are going to be used for the common good. In the same fashion with the principle of redress, difference principle also eliminates the obsession with efficiency in the basic structure and employs a more humane
In Bergley’s article, psychologist Ed Diener states that “too much happiness might not be such a good thing” (454). Happiness in moderation is beneficial, just as negative emotions are also helpful in moderation to humans. The article “The New Science of Happiness” by Claudia Wallis shares what Diener found while he studied happiness. Wallis claims that “once your basic needs are met, additional income does little to raise your sense of satisfaction with life” (Wallis). Therefore, statements such as: money can buy happiness, are false.
High voter turnout could mean that people are satisfied as to how the government provides for their needs and promotes their general welfare. On the other hand, low voter turnout could mean that there is something in the government that needs to be improved. Lipjphards antidote of having a strong democracy is to maximize turnout and it could only be done effectively through compulsory voting. In his literature, he mentions that low over turnout could be a serious problem for the following reasons: (1) democratic legitimacy is questioned and (2) low voter turnout could mean that certain groups vote in greater numbers than other groups. If legitimacy is lost, it could lead to chaotic conditions because when people start to doubt the government, uprising and rebellion could be the very results to this.