James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules.
Interdependence implies that action of actors (states and non-states) will impose costs on other members of the system. And affected actors will respond politically according to their capacity in order to avoid the burden of adjustment forced upon them. Therefore, interdependence means that national economies are connected with each other in the way that it creates mutual dependence. Interdependence does not necessary lead to cooperation, but that patterns of interdependence and patterns of potential power resources in a given issue-area are two sides of one coin
She argues that the states that contract these mercenaries have a duty of care to these mercenaries. Moreover, to the profiteering objection which holds that PMCs live off the sufferings of others, she draws analogy to weapon manufacturers and questions whether they too do not benefit from destruction wrought by war. Hence, this is not a sufficient justification to outlaw PMCs. Again, other professionals such as lawyers and doctors benefit from others misgivings too. As concerns the loss-of-control objection, she says that proper regulation on what should be considered as acceptable mercenary activity, and the provision of adequate sanctions for actors who fail to comply, ought to do the trick.
Mouffe envisage the model of 'agonistic' democracy that, far from imposing a general rational order, maintains both democratic pluralism and a realm of political conflicts and frictions. According to this view, 'the "other" is no longer seen as an enemy to be destroyed, but as an "adversary," i.e., somebody with whose ideas we are going to struggle but whose right to defend those ideas we will not put into question.' (Mouffe 1999, 755) In this respect, Habermasian theory that finds its justification in universalizing the procedures of justifications themselves 'is a conceptual impossibility.' (Laclau and Mouffe 2001,
For Hobbes it is simply axiomatic that disputation as to who should judge important social and political issues spells the end of the commonwealth. For us, it is equally obvious that only a few extreme forms of dispute have this very dangerous power. Dividing the powers that are important to government need not leave a society more open to those dangerous conflicts. Indeed, many would now argue that political compromises which provide different groups and bodies with independent space to judge certain social or political issues can be crucial for preventing disputes from escalating into violent conflict or civil
To Hobbes, human beings are irrational in nature hence the need for a system (state) to maintain law and order. John Locke maintains that the state of Nature is peaceful but human beings may be driven by selfish interests to disrupt this peaceful state hence the need for a system (state) to regulate and oversee human activity. The views of the above scholars are complementary in nature in the sense that they all recognize the state as the basis for the attainment of
While theorists such as Socrates and Plato believed that each individual has the right to pursue knowledge and happiness, democratic systems on the other hand are characteristic of hindering the same. While this critique targets the factors underlying the development of democratic systems, it also gives the assumption that every individual has the right to partake in matters of governance and public policy regardless of their capability or knowledge. Such ignorant assumptions would lead to the collapse of a democratic system altogether since the government would conform to anecdotal believes rather than factual realities. While this critique brings for underlying challenges of a democracy, the repercussions of inclusion of every individual in governance would do more harm than good for the entire
(ii) Power and Conflict: The capacity the one person has the influence over the other persons such that other persons act in accordance with his/her wishes can be defined as ‘Power’. Conflicts could be both positive and negative. Good conflicts could be encouraged but bad conflicts ought to be prevented. Low cooperation between Peterson and Wu increases the competition and the conflict of Power. Peterson and Wu ought to forgo their misconceptions and understand each other’s intentions before selecting a strategy to resolve their conflict.
The world is a diverse community with a variety of lifestyles, perceptions and preferences, what defines a better life in a certain region of the world is blasphemy elsewhere. The are those who firmly stand on grounds that say no matter how forward development movement leads their nations ahead, there are things that cannot and must not change even if it cost lives and erupts violence, while some will choose to accept and accommodate developmental that are contrary to what they believe in as a minority just to avert war and succumb to them in the name of peace and prosperity. In order to succesfully compare development between developing and developed countries its more interesting to do so by contrasting countries that are divided by a thin line, further more ones in which are in competition with each other in terms of their status in international influence. There is no better example than two large, halfway across the world from each other, this essay aims to identify vast number of differences ranging from national resources and services to governance, separating the developed United States of America (USA) from developing Peoples Republic of China. Under resources and services the essay will cover financing and maintenance of military, education, infrastructure and the health sector not forgetting environmental sustenance.
Although focusing on European populism unlike Müller who talks more about the American counterpart, Taggart also defends the idea that populism is detrimental to democracy. As Müller, he says that it is the dismissal of opposing views as illegitimate that that makes it anti-democratic. Taggart goes further to argue that populist do not put their concerns on representation but on betterment of governance of the nation thus, seeing democracy as unnecessary or secondary. He also mentions the populist creation of the “heartland”, a pure nation that was brought down by the establishment and their support of globalisation. Taggart sees that creates a discrimination of people that are equal under the same rights and that by regarding them as an “other” they are being anti-democratic as well.