These condition could intrinsically be seen as rather unfair because the depicted person has to endow in a drastically life changing contract, deprived from any knowledge regarding his actual aspirations. He would have to make a permanent decision, which greatly changes the essentials of his life, without being aware of the person he actually is. How could one possibly regard this conduct as fair? Rawls’ defence might possibly be an attempt to legitimize this conduct by again putting emphasis on the fundamental equality of circumstances constructing the original contract. Although this person would have to make a decision without being aware of his identity, this would apply to all.
2 statement. Waltz argues that the morality of prudence represents the conflict between order and survival. He argues that moral attitudes become more dominant when the consequences of political failure become more urgent. Waltz argues that the states must be concerned first of all with their stable position in the system rather than to maximize its power. The prudence can only be reasonable in a system of balance of power because this balance should be maintained by great powers.
Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors. There are three main principles of Nozick’s entitlement theory: justice in acquisition, which accounts how people come about to own things; justice in transfer, where whatever is justly acquired can be freely transferred as the owner has absolute property rights over it and thirdly, rectification of injustice, which is how to deal with property that has been unjustly acquired or transferred. An example of this is that if one owns a beach house, the
The criticism on governance Walters outlined in his article is the antipolitical view on political problems. To understand what Walters means by ‘displacing political conflict’ in governance approaches, it is important to clarify the difference between politics and governance. The pessimistic view associates politics with a negative and uncooperative manner of doing business. However politics is a game of power (between different interests/ opinions). On the other hand there is governance, which is broader than government; it is not just a way of ruling but contains a technocratic perspective of a search for an ideal solution.
It is how the powerful manipulate the powerless in order to fulfil the needs of those with power. What one may have here is a latent conflict, which consists in a contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests of those they exclude. These latter may not express or even be conscious of their interests, but ... the identification of those interests ultimately always rests on empirically supportable and refutable hypotheses (Lukes 2005). This is a vitally important power source used in politics and is fundamental in order to succeed. This power was even referred to by Lukes (1974) as “insidious” in nature, as it is seen as almost an abuse of power from those in higher positions especially the political elite on those more vulnerable or open to manipulation of working class background in
Is not it chaotic to analysis every socio-economic discourse as self-perpetuating and the formulation of a democratic state as interventionist design? Indeed, the socio-economic transformation process is natural, circumstantial and too complex. Then, the formation of political institutions based on democratic credentials is also not unnatural in this process. As, within the very heart of humanity, there is obvious urge for universal values like ethics, morality and egalitarianism which give rise to some obvious collective processes. Undoubtedly, the inherent conflicts in the society always take its own course to overwhelm the instinctive insurrections and in reality, the democratic fundamentals and ethics are essentially the products of this process.
Weakness: They draw attention to the importance of institutions but they do not suggest as the only (proof that one thing definitely causes another) force in politics; other factors play a role such as (how money affects people 's lives) development and diffusion of ideas. Some of the weaknesses of this approach is that it does not incorporate some parts of individual decision making to its analysis. Some of the strengths of this approach include its focus on the effect of political struggle on institutional results and how institutional results then affect political struggles. This approach should be more useful to the analysis of institutional development and policy making clear and sensible choice assume that people have a fixed set of preferences and they behave in manner that (makes as big as possible) the accomplishment of these preferences. One of the(like nothing else in the world) ideas (you think are true) of clear and sensible choice see politics as a series of total (of everything or everyone) action problems.
A political theory needs to explain real-world phenomena – a theory that attempts to hypothesize about something that does not ultimately have any effect on reality, will be unlikely to have any notable effect on how the world comes to view and react to certain aspects of political study. Political theories also need to be falsifiable. A theory that is unfalsifiable cannot come into conflict with any form of observation – no possible experiment that one could perform would be able to contradict it. Theories need to be testable, as one cannot merely assert that a hypothesis is true or false without going through a process of experimentation where one tests the actual validity of the claim. Finally, theories should be able to be adapted and altered slightly over time to ensure that they stay relevant.
Any theoretical framework which fails to slot in such major variables as the impact of war, conquest, colonial domination, international political and military relationships, or of international trade and the cross-national flow of capital cannot hope to explain either the origins of these societies or the nature of their struggles for political and economic autonomy-struggles, it should be added, which all societies face, though perhaps in varying degrees and contexts at different historical moments. Other difficulties are raised by the notion of ‘traditional society '. As Huntington (1971: 293-4) has recently noted, 'modernity and tradition are essentially deferent concepts. This means that the modern ideal is set forth, and then everything which is not modern is labelled traditional’. Thus, the notion of tradition was formulated not upon the basis of observation but rather as an imaginary opposite to modernity.
Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is interpreted as new form of liberalism. Neoliberalism is a theory that holds that states should try to achieve absolute gains rather than trying to achieve gains relative to other countries. Neoliberalism argues that in an interdependent world, states will seek efficiency in managing collective problems presented by international anarchy. Neoliberalism is a direct response to neorealism, which emphasizes that states have no reason to cooperate with one another. They exist in an anarchic world where states must all compete with one another.