Although Machiavelli’s approach does not meet the Utopian moral standards and seems to be unethical, I think that his views are superior to More’s because it deals with the real and practical rather than the imaginary and the ideal. Focusing on a practical method, especially in terms of governance, will result in greater success as it is based on the realities of the world we live in. Thus, pragmatism in political reform, as portrayed in The Prince, seems more reasonable compared to More’s Utopia because it demonstrates a better grasp of human nature, it is applicable and reproducible, and it is relative rather than absolute One point that Utopia and The Prince differ in, which effects their different approach in political reform is their view of human nature. Machiavelli has a somewhat negative yet realistic view of human nature, while
It is the time to think how we can utilize the social values. Informal control helps to stabilize the society by enforcing norms related to ethic and morality. Formal control tends to enforce laws to deal with the problems socially. Formal control tends to have more effect and power over people than its informal alternative. But as discussed above, both functions have some flaws in them that have to be corrected and rectified without any delay.
Likewise, as innovation takes economic fortitude away from the wealthy, the non-elite use their growing influence and demand more political power. Inclusive economic institutions promote inclusive political institutions and vice versa. This is what Acemoglu and Robinson call the virtuous circle. On the other hand, they also point out that the opposite is true as well: Extractive economic institutions fortify extractive political institutions and vice versa in the vicious circle. The vicious circle is often difficult to escape from.
While this unstoppable force of equality has helped American society, its presence also presents many dangers. As politics are extended from aristocrats to the majority, the end is brought to differences in status, noble ranks, and titles, and hereditary privileges. In simple terms, where there is democracy, there is equality. In America, people are becoming more equal in wealth, education, and culture. This advance is partially brought on by modernization, many institutions and inventions have played a part in developing and promoting equality and democracy.
As this paper examines both theories, the guiding questions are as follows: How do the theories under examination explain the dynamic of political and economic integration, and to what extent are they capable of envisaging the European Union? This paper tries to identify the criticisms to the theories and compare the applicability of these models. The thesis argues that no single approach can fully account the economic policy making of decision makers in the European Union. Hence, both theories still exist in the discourse of integration. Furthermore, this paper argues that although both may prevail, one shall establish better assumptions than the other.
The first level explained international politics as primarily led by people or the result of psychological forces. The second level explained international politics as led by internal regimes of states, while the third level considered the role of systemic factors or the influence of international anarchy on state behavior. "Anarchy" in this context means not a condition of chaos or disorder, but only that there is no supreme authority that governs ethnic states. He would agree with Morgenthau about human nature and their role in politics. 2 statement.
The relationship between them and political issues is that factors can be the topic of a political issue, but they cannot be the sole cause of conflict because conflict only arises if the different viewpoints of the factor choose to enter into rivalry, thus it becomes a political issue because as it is said in the definition: it is a quarrel between governments. Not many issues that lead to the war had much to do with any economy, the issues that had nothing to do with it far surpass the ones that do. What it boiled down to was a dispute between political systems. Nothing played a more vital role that that of the colonists’ yearn for a different political system of government, thus proving that political issues, as opposed to economic factors, caused the American
Without it, political philosophy loses its inspiration and purpose. Therefore, human interaction becomes fundamental for the discussion and proliferation of political philosophy. Unfortunately, what might seem a natural and obvious fact, has not inspired much of attention by the scholarly community. This not only impeded a prolific analysis on the field, it has also avoided the creation of connections between the fundamental act of speech and the importance of a complacent urban planning. Above all, spaces of all kinds and nature are essential for the execution of the right of free speech.
International law has no central authority and operation as an anarchic highly decentralized legal order. Nevertheless, the absence of an authoritarian figure to enforce penalties does not mean that international law should not be considered “real” law. Law is still applied, but practiced and enforced in different ways. Overall, international law is considered “real” law because system of rules, established by binding agreements, that aim to regulate the actions of its members, but with different characteristics practiced in the domestic arena, where there is legislative, judiciary, executive, and police
This perpetuates and reinforces the belief that those at the peak (after ticking the checklist of ‘success’) are there mainly because they are better and henceforth, more deserving than others. This builds narcissism and an elitist attitude that will divide the country that prides herself as egalitarian. Meritocracy often rewards those who are already ahead in life – with better socioeconomic background and connections and thus creating a vicious cycle of those who are at the top stays at the top, as seen in the image below. The idealistic thought that hard work is sufficient simply does not cut it. This is applicable in the case of politics where we see many of our ministers being chosen from the system of scholars and/or by inner party members pulling them in.