query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
17
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
c0139df72a6b7151af191e105bd7906b
|
Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash
It is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans [i] .
The Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.
[i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com
|
[
{
"docid": "31005eaa688749809b70dbad365e3018",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.\n\nWhat is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.\n\nThere is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.\n\nAs Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "42d027489222663603a05833a07d794e",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration [i] .\n\nUltimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.\n\n[i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e9d8f21a06bdfb05c6af826623c424b",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.\n\nIt is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c40c6c6fc23af45e1649d38d23ed0ec",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.\n\nIn terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.\n\nIt’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them [i] .\n\n[i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dbc2cdc16a5965c4ebdaab2bb83c3e0",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that [i] .\n\n[i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e02b543322ce9c6bd6be85d49374621e",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8942e96e09b8a259520840891d213c8",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.\n\nFree markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.\n\nIn a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f94bd03dc8c149265110d982819997b4",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust\n\nDuring the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats [i] .\n\nRepublican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.\n\n[i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10cda30f2535d441372d807eb54829cc",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.\n\nQuality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy. [i]\n\n[i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdff3bb0b621a84fd4dba22bf2090df1",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.\n\nThe Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it [i] .\n\n[i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c406732ae999f47a9b236178e5b13fd1",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism\n\nA free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work [i] .\n\n[i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d265d75f49afde1d49a77ca3316197bb",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth\n\nThe tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office.\n\nThese tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation. [i]\n\n[i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "502837c153e79d192625e76d7dbddc2b",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy “After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”\n\nThe Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%, [i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed.\n\n[i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140137506/weekly-standard-obama-no-fdr-on-unemployment\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6e93bf1c82fe2731cebb028eede8244f
|
Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth
The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office.
These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation. [i]
[i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html
|
[
{
"docid": "8dbc2cdc16a5965c4ebdaab2bb83c3e0",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that [i] .\n\n[i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e02b543322ce9c6bd6be85d49374621e",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8942e96e09b8a259520840891d213c8",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.\n\nFree markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.\n\nIn a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42d027489222663603a05833a07d794e",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration [i] .\n\nUltimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.\n\n[i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31005eaa688749809b70dbad365e3018",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.\n\nWhat is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.\n\nThere is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.\n\nAs Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e9d8f21a06bdfb05c6af826623c424b",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.\n\nIt is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c40c6c6fc23af45e1649d38d23ed0ec",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.\n\nIn terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.\n\nIt’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them [i] .\n\n[i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c406732ae999f47a9b236178e5b13fd1",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism\n\nA free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work [i] .\n\n[i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "502837c153e79d192625e76d7dbddc2b",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy “After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”\n\nThe Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%, [i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed.\n\n[i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140137506/weekly-standard-obama-no-fdr-on-unemployment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f94bd03dc8c149265110d982819997b4",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust\n\nDuring the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats [i] .\n\nRepublican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.\n\n[i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10cda30f2535d441372d807eb54829cc",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.\n\nQuality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy. [i]\n\n[i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdff3bb0b621a84fd4dba22bf2090df1",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.\n\nThe Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it [i] .\n\n[i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7287b1d7d45cb44e462299682e59200a",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash\n\nIt is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans [i] .\n\nThe Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.\n\n[i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
45abd4e9685e30396785dcd2fa24e71a
|
Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice
Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2]
[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’
[2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "ead49d0624d58dea05f558e4155cb98e",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c3a82de36d7d2e806849ba1cc51d1032",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.\n\n[1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n\n[2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009\n\n[4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d51740ba17ea0f20f69b9e76c855b7c",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district.\n\n[1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a653f33821f9e896aab3006fad8ab5de",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2]\n\n[1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n\n[2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06fdabc195e3b67185b439458fc1b0c8",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3]\n\n[1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009\n\n[2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n\n[3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4f2d113dc9d2308dab158a4ddd3ef36",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1]\n\n[1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe37ceff88c0aa265457fa73f2250c3",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability.\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008\n\n[3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "837df3fb9f5e8856fb8faf276e7c39aa",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e1486cd3786bcfc3bbf1562f4ccb46f",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]\n\n[1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03f5b4dcac64fa75fa0b6929394d6e7f",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1]\n\n[1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be713d786d3c5bbd14ad362d65b662d1",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money\n\nEarmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4]\n\n[1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008\n\n[2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009\n\n[3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010\n\n[4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "888f6010a8562e02b9ff144537676a17",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks erode trust in the government\n\nThe use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "910b8e42ce0085be875aad96651a0066",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Abolishing earmarks will save money\n\nScrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs.\n\n[1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010\n\n[2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a49e3a48ecbfbe60ef5192aade33a4ea",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership\n\nThe ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.\n\n[1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93459ec2a75c0584af16a6e1b2696fdc",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss\n\nThere is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1]\n\n[1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "032d36f609c7e708b79ba25f6f67b2bc",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process\n\nThe use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]\n\nThe attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]\n\n[1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n\n[2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008\n\n[3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009\n\n[5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32a2b4576087280c21aaef20567b7ca",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks help to create congressional stability\n\nIn a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da5b6dc5fd6fae0ab65339ed10b4d61",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks are part of the power of the purse\n\nEarmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.\n\n[1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006\n\n[2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009\n\n[3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n\n[4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "095c38e7c7aa90cda3aabe20f28bcb8b",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch\n\nThe ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]\n\n[1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008\n\n[2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n\n[3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8d24e95bf2783c095e1937172643dab3
|
Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss
There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1]
[1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009
|
[
{
"docid": "03f5b4dcac64fa75fa0b6929394d6e7f",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1]\n\n[1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d4f2d113dc9d2308dab158a4ddd3ef36",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1]\n\n[1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe37ceff88c0aa265457fa73f2250c3",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability.\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008\n\n[3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "837df3fb9f5e8856fb8faf276e7c39aa",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e1486cd3786bcfc3bbf1562f4ccb46f",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]\n\n[1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a82de36d7d2e806849ba1cc51d1032",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.\n\n[1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n\n[2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009\n\n[4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead49d0624d58dea05f558e4155cb98e",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d51740ba17ea0f20f69b9e76c855b7c",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district.\n\n[1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a653f33821f9e896aab3006fad8ab5de",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2]\n\n[1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n\n[2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06fdabc195e3b67185b439458fc1b0c8",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3]\n\n[1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009\n\n[2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n\n[3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "032d36f609c7e708b79ba25f6f67b2bc",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process\n\nThe use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]\n\nThe attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]\n\n[1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n\n[2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008\n\n[3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009\n\n[5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32a2b4576087280c21aaef20567b7ca",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks help to create congressional stability\n\nIn a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da5b6dc5fd6fae0ab65339ed10b4d61",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks are part of the power of the purse\n\nEarmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.\n\n[1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006\n\n[2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009\n\n[3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n\n[4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "095c38e7c7aa90cda3aabe20f28bcb8b",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch\n\nThe ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]\n\n[1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008\n\n[2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n\n[3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be713d786d3c5bbd14ad362d65b662d1",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money\n\nEarmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4]\n\n[1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008\n\n[2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009\n\n[3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010\n\n[4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97a4611f5da0846610e524743ed55626",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice\n\nEarmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2]\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "888f6010a8562e02b9ff144537676a17",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks erode trust in the government\n\nThe use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "910b8e42ce0085be875aad96651a0066",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Abolishing earmarks will save money\n\nScrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs.\n\n[1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010\n\n[2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a49e3a48ecbfbe60ef5192aade33a4ea",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership\n\nThe ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.\n\n[1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0315b98d71c584fe95592bd3974f48f1
|
Earmarks are part of the power of the purse
Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.
[1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006
[2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009
[3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007
[4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009
|
[
{
"docid": "d4f2d113dc9d2308dab158a4ddd3ef36",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1]\n\n[1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "abe37ceff88c0aa265457fa73f2250c3",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability.\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008\n\n[3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "837df3fb9f5e8856fb8faf276e7c39aa",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e1486cd3786bcfc3bbf1562f4ccb46f",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]\n\n[1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03f5b4dcac64fa75fa0b6929394d6e7f",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1]\n\n[1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a82de36d7d2e806849ba1cc51d1032",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.\n\n[1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n\n[2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009\n\n[4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead49d0624d58dea05f558e4155cb98e",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d51740ba17ea0f20f69b9e76c855b7c",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district.\n\n[1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a653f33821f9e896aab3006fad8ab5de",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2]\n\n[1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n\n[2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06fdabc195e3b67185b439458fc1b0c8",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3]\n\n[1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009\n\n[2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n\n[3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93459ec2a75c0584af16a6e1b2696fdc",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss\n\nThere is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1]\n\n[1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "032d36f609c7e708b79ba25f6f67b2bc",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process\n\nThe use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]\n\nThe attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]\n\n[1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007\n\n[2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008\n\n[3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009\n\n[4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009\n\n[5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32a2b4576087280c21aaef20567b7ca",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks help to create congressional stability\n\nIn a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "095c38e7c7aa90cda3aabe20f28bcb8b",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch\n\nThe ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]\n\n[1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008\n\n[2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009\n\n[3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be713d786d3c5bbd14ad362d65b662d1",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money\n\nEarmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4]\n\n[1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008\n\n[2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009\n\n[3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010\n\n[4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97a4611f5da0846610e524743ed55626",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice\n\nEarmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2]\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n\n[2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "888f6010a8562e02b9ff144537676a17",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks erode trust in the government\n\nThe use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]\n\n[1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "910b8e42ce0085be875aad96651a0066",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Abolishing earmarks will save money\n\nScrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs.\n\n[1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010\n\n[2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a49e3a48ecbfbe60ef5192aade33a4ea",
"text": "ax philosophy politics government house would abolish congressional earmarks Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership\n\nThe ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.\n\n[1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4bca56e0b990221524ee8fc963cb0be7
|
Damaging to Russia
The United States wants to isolate Russia economically with Kerry threatening Putting “He may find himself with asset freezes, on Russian business, American business may pull back, there may be a further tumble of the ruble.” [1] Even without economic action Russia is already suffering fallout from the markets. The Moscow stock exchange fell 11.2% - or almost $60billion. The ruble reached all-time lows against the dollar and the euro and the Central bank was forced to raise interest rates by 1.5% to prevent further losses. [2] Longer term investment is likely to be hit as US and European companies are less willing to invest in a country with an aggressive foreign policy.
[1] Swaine, 2014
[2] Adomanis, Mark, ‘The Invasion Of Crimea Is Crushing Russia's Stock And Currency Markets’, Forbes, 3 March 2014
|
[
{
"docid": "60aebcf1d556466a58c7a95601383ed4",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has While there has been some economic fallout for Russia this is likely to only be temporary, as the risk of actual conflict goes away the markets will return to normal. There is almost no chance that there will be any sanctions that do real damage because much of Europe is dependent on Russia for gas; Germany gets around 39% of its gas from Russia, and this accounts for almost 9% of its energy consumption and other smaller economies in Eastern Europe are even more dependent. [1] Impose sanctions and Russia could squeeze gas supplies.\n\n[1] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ad93d8ac5ea9cb86b5a406d3ef0035bc",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Russia is hardly the first nation to send troops across a border without UN Security Council support, indeed there is quite a list; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo. All undertaken by western powers. Russia is not threatening the use of force it is simply guaranteeing that its citizens will not come to harm and putting the military on standby just in case such protection is necessary.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8c4c6b3eaecd640f66370fa3cac7ed6",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has This action by Russia shows (once again) that the consequences of violating international norms is practically zero. As such the action damages the credibility of that norm, especially when applied to a powerful state like Russia. [1] The main problem is Russia is a member of these organisations; as a Security Council member the UN can do nothing, similarly it is blocking a full scale monitoring mission by the OSCE. [2] As for the G8, a talking shop, is Putin really likely to care? [3]\n\n[1] Ku, Julian, ‘Russia Reminds the World (and International Lawyers) of the Limits of International Law’, Opinio Juris, 2 March 2014\n\n[2] AFP, 2014\n\n[3] Judah, 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da39018c954711348c54efdf64bf47ad",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Negotiating with the new government would mean recognising it. Russia may well recognise a new government after elections are held and the government is once more legitimate but until then there is little to negotiate. Moreover elections must be held only when there is stability. At the moment Russia won’t recognise any elections because they would be held under a situation of terror where “there is the danger that a fascist element will come to the fore, and some anti-semite will come to power.” [1]\n\n[1] Siddique, 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc382a58b153308a066f8b81f27b1693",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has “Ukraine is not [only] our closest neighbour, it is our fraternal nation... we will not go to war with the Ukrainian people.” [1] There have been no shots fired and the action is not a hostile act, it is simply to protect the Crimeans. Russia has not engaged in an armed attack as the forces in Crimea have not fired a shot.\n\n[1] Siddique, 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f210e3559d0da60fe67a1bbe061d90a",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Acting due to a change of government is not the prerogative of another state. Putin is within his rights not to recognise that government and to grant asylum to former president Yanukovych but not to take action within the Ukraine to change the situation.\n\nThe coup however was not a coup but an abdication. “Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership.” It was therefore Yanukovych who essentially decided that he was no longer in charge by leaving Kiev and not making any statements for several days. [1] Moreover the Ukrainian constitution (both 2004 and 2010 versions) gives the right to impeach the President to Parliament [2] this is what the Parliament has done.\n\n[1] Psaki, Jen, ‘Daily Press Briefing’, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2014\n\n[2] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 85 (7 & 10), wikisource, 2004 , 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5986e8b5bbb01014c50b602e88987e24",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise.\n\nSimilarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external. [1]\n\n[1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58a466eec3fbc666e58b63d4aabbda0a",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has “Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power. [1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”. [2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive.\n\nWhile it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people.\n\n[1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014\n\n[2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf59da3ff9e9723abefd8f6695509060",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Historical and cultural claims are not worth much when it comes to sovereignty over territory; if they were then every country in the world would be involved in disputes with their neighbours. In 1994 Russia agreed the Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine in it committing “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine [and] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. [1] Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [2] Russia has therefore not been contesting sovereignty and so has no legal claim.\n\n[1] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994\n\n[2] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaeb1918243add3bd7ef3e8c8a07fda0",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council. [1] This has not been forthcoming in this case.\n\nOn the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases. [2]\n\n[1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014\n\n[2] Fraser, 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd641f074ddda7825d797adbc7f543d",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Any cross border troop movements are a violation of sovereignty\n\nStates are allowed to take measures for “self-defence if an armed attack occurs”. [1] The movement of troops across the international border from Russia into Ukraine, and from the Russian base in Sevastopol clearly is a violation of sovereignty and Ukraine if it wishes has every right to use force to defend itself even if the Russians don’t fire first. [2]\n\n[1] United Nations, ‘Article 51’, 1945\n\n[2] Deeks, 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "615db5bada5b051d067b655695d58a4f",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has What are the consequences of violating international norms?\n\nPresident Putin has noted the west is being hypocritical by highlighting their role in the middle east over the last decade. And it is true that violating the prohibition against force does not carry any immediate sanction, and that which it does carry are discretionary to individual powers. However that does not mean the violation does not matter; instead it means that any attempt to annex Crimea will be seen as completely illegitimate. [1] International institutions are also likely to react, albeit slowly and not very effectively. Institutions such as the Council of Europe demand “Ukraine's territorial integrity must be respected and international commitments upheld” [2] while the OSCE is sending monitors to Ukraine. [3] Some institutions may exclude Russia altogether; there have been suggestions from Secretary of State Kerry that Russia could be thrown out of the G8. [4]\n\n[1] Voeten, Erik, ‘International law and institutions look pretty weak now, but they will matter a lot down the road’, The Washington Post, 2 March 2014\n\n[2] Jagland, T., ‘Secretary General Jagland warns against escalation in Ukraine's Crimea region’, Council of Europe, 1 March 2014\n\n[3] AFP, ‘OSCE security monitors 'advance teams' in Ukraine tonight: US’, google.com, 4 March 2014\n\n[4] Swaine, Jon, ‘Russia G8 status at risk over ‘incredible act of aggression’ in Crimea says Kerry’, theguardian.com, 2 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d373a63ce8f4947817b20ff13b2d53b",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has It is an invasion without Security Council sanction\n\nThe legality of Russia’s invasion of Crimea is simple “Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine violates international law.” [1] The UN Charter is unambiguous “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. [2] Russia has both threatened the use of force by its parliament authorising the President to use force on Ukrainian territory [3] and actually done so by sending troops into Crimea. The only legal way for the UN Charter’s prohibition on force to be avoided is through a Security Council mandate. Which Russia does not have. [4]\n\n[1] Posner, Eric, ‘Russia’s Military intervention in Ukraine: International Law implications’, ericposner.com, 1 March 2014\n\n[2] United Nations, ‘Article 2’, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945\n\n[3] RT, 1/3/2014\n\n[4] Deeks, Ashley, ‘Russian Forces in Ukraine: A Sketch of the International Law Issues’, Lawfare, 2 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfabe0871d4ffaeccf21b923d477ab85",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Russia should negotiate with the new government\n\nIf Putin is truly concerned about Ukraine’s government being illegitimate and unconstitutional then he should be supporting elections as soon as possible to settle the question of who the government. Putin himself accepts that Yanukovych has “no political future” and helped him for “humanitarian reasons”. [1] If this is the case then military action in Ukraine is superfluous; what Russia needs is a new government in Ukraine that is legitimate. The action in Crimea however simply unites Ukrainian opinion against him making it less likely that a pro-Russian candidate stands a chance of winning the election. Already 58% of Ukrainians support integration with the EU. [2] A rash attempt on Crimea could ensure Putin permanently loses Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence.\n\n[1] Siddique, 2014\n\n[2] Titchenko, Ilya, ‘The Deadly illusion of a divided Ukraine’, Kyiv Post, 2 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0039ffbd03b6c43fc7da8eed78e4bb26",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Necessary response to an illegal coup\n\nThe current government in Ukraine is the result of an illegal coup. On the 21st February Yanukovych and the opposition in Ukraine agreed to EU proposals that restored the 2004 Ukrainian constitution and set Presidential elections for later in 2014. The two sides were “to create a coalition and form a national unity government”. Thus Yanukovych was to remain President until the next elections. [1] The opposition however ignored this deal. As Putin puts it “They immediately seized his residence rather than giving him a chance to fulfil the agreement... He didn’t have any chance of being reelected.” The Ukrainian opposition used illegal and unconstitutional means to effect regime change. Russia therefore has a right to act to protect those who there has been an “armed seizure of power”. [2]\n\n[1] ‘Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text’, theguardian.com, 21 February 2014\n\n[2] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014 [used this link as it is more comprehensive than the Guardian’s own]\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f42f20e59192ea4bf7b4b41f27c51f6",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Approval of the Parliament\n\nThe Russian parliament has agreed to approve force “in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots” [1] The Russian Federal Council approved the move unanimously so allowing Russian troops to be used. [2] This gives President Putting the authority to use the Russian military in Crimea, or elsewhere in the Ukraine, if he believes it is necessary.\n\nThe Crimean Parliament has also asked to join Russia and is to have a referendum to show the support of the people for this action. “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.” [3] This clearly gives Russian troops the right to be in Crimea.\n\n[1] Kelly, Lidia, and Polityuk, Pavel, ‘Putin ready to invade Ukraine; Kiev warns of war’, Reuters, 1 March 2014\n\n[2] RT, 1/3/2014\n\n[3] AP, ‘Crimean parliament votes to join Russia, referendum on move March 16’, FoxNews.com, 6 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e69f3898312a292345ae49063734dae",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Crimea should be Russian\n\nRussia has a strong claim to the Crimea; The territory was only handed over in 1954 by Nikita Krushchev for political reasons. [1] Previously it had been Russian for three hundred years. Historically Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian. Culturally Crimea is important to Russia too, it was the main Russian tourism destination during the Soviet Union and Symbolised Russia’s gains in the 18th and 19th Centuries. [2] Russia for most of the 1990s refused to accept Ukraine’s independence, let alone Crimea that Crimea should be a part of it with the Russian Parliament engaging in actions such as declaring Sevastopol a Russian city. [3] Therefore the sovereignty of the region should be considered to be contested.\n\n[1] Pravda, ‘USSR's Nikita Khrushchev gave Russia’s Crimea away to Ukraine in only 15 minutes’, 19 February 2009\n\n[2] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014\n\n[3] Minorities at Risk Project, ‘Chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine’, 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b957a47b65970ad59ab251f8cfdeb964",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Invited by the legitimate government\n\nPresident Yanukovych is Ukraine’s legitimate President. He is therefore perfectly at liberty to allow Russian troops into his country to keep the peace in much the same way as countries around the world welcome US troops on their soil as protection from external threats or UN peacekeepers to keep the peace domestically. Yanukovych in a letter to Putin called “on the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine.” [1]\n\n[1] ‘Yanukovich sent letter to Putin asking for Russian military presence in Ukraine’, RT, 3 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b359779ea97f1c3b7c52e39f8b9e245",
"text": "onal europe global international law politics warpeace house believes russia has Need to protect Russian civilians\n\nIt is the people of Crimea who are important and their interests should be considered. Putin told the Federation Council that Russia is responding to a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory”. [1] Russia needs to protect both the Russian citizens who are in Crimea and the ethnic Russians who look to Moscow not Kiev.\n\nThe Crimean parliament has agreed to hold a referendum on 25th May on “Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements.” [2] This was put forward to 16th March with two options; Do you support Crimea's reunification with Russia? Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Crimean Republic dated 1992 and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine? [3] The 97% vote for joining Russia and 83% turnout conclusively show that this is the will of the Crimean people. [4]\n\n[1] RT, 1/3/2014\n\n[2] RT, 27/2/2014\n\n[3] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Crimean parliament speeds up referendum, introduces question about joining Russia’, Kyiv Post, 6 March 2014\n\n[4] Hewitt, 17/3/2014\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8cf1c902c85ca03ece637578298cc102
|
The West is reliant on Russia’s Gas reserves
NATO’s European members have an additional reason not to offend Russia by continuing to expand the alliance in defiance of Moscow. Much of Europe depends on imports of Russian gas for their energy needs, Russia currently supplies 25% of European gas and this may rise to as high as 55% by 2020. [1] Unfortunately the Kremlin has made clear over the past three years that it is prepared to use its control of energy as a political weapon. It has already limited the flow of energy to states (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia) who have annoyed it on several occasions, and may well be prepared to turn lights, heating and factories off across Europe in retaliation for interference in its near abroad. [2]
Russia’s energy riches in a time of high oil prices also mean that it is far richer and self-confident than at any time since the fall of communism. The profits of its energy wealth have also enabled its military to be strengthened. This means that even if Moscow backed down in response to western assertiveness in the past, it is now determined to overturn past humiliations.
[1] Paillard, Christophe-Alexandre, ‘Rethinking Russia: Russia and Europe’s Mutual Energy Dependence’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, No.2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp.65-84, http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russia-and-europe%E2%80%99s-mutual-energy-dependence
[2] Weir, Fred, ‘Why Russia is cutting off gas supplies to Belarus’, The Christian Science Monitor, 21 June 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0621/Why-Russia-is-cutting-off-gas-supplies-to-Belarus
|
[
{
"docid": "3b51fdd39c22a25bd745b5d528789b4f",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and its economy is very vulnerable to a fall in oil and gas prices. Russia needs to sell its oil at $115 per barrel for the budget to balance. [1] Despite recent hostility to foreign oil firms attempting to operate in Russia, in the long term the country also needs western investment and technology if it is to maintain its energy output by opening and exploiting new fields. Indeed, Europe cannot be held hostage to Russian energy policy – who else could Russia sell its oil and gas to? Russia’s apparent military strength is also deceptive – its army and air force actually performed badly in Georgia and are no match for the modern forces available to NATO.\n\n[1] Nikishenkov, Oleg, ‘Oil muddles Russia’s budget debate’, themoscownews, 16 May 2011, http://themoscownews.com/business/20110516/188670156.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "61553aa9acaf4e0cd6b75af04ebb33cc",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The West would like Russian cooperation in a whole range of areas, but this isn’t a zero sum game where if one side wins the other must lose out. Russia should also worry about issues such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the threat posed by failed states, so it is in its own interests to work with international partners to find global solutions. It also wants World Trade Organisation membership to continue its economic growth, especially if oil and gas prices should fall. For these reasons Russia will not make its whole foreign policy dependent on the expansion of NATO, but can be relied upon to continue existing partnerships because they are of mutual benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c2fc27c41f2f3f6272d1d0ffbb40661",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia actually make Georgia better suited to NATO membership than before. There would have been a clear danger of allowing Georgia into NATO if the status of these breakaway regions was unsettled, with the obvious potential for conflict with their Russian patron. Once Georgia can be brought to accept the permanent loss of these territories to Russia, then it becomes a much more united country, without any other obvious grounds for Russia’s future interference. This is similarly the case with Crimea; The Russian Black Sea Fleet based in a NATO member would have clearly been a risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb8e796eb3144709cb2ed610edace4a3",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. It was obvious from this conflict that Georgia could not defend itself so the burden would fall on NATO. [1] Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. [2] If Ukraine had been a member of NATO when Russia moved troops into Crimea then NATO would be a dangerous confrontation with Russia.\n\n[1] Tayler, Jeffrey, ‘Russia: Back to the Future’, the Atlantic, September 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/russia-back-to-the-future/7029/\n\n[2] Varettoni, William, ‘Crimea’s Overlooked Instability’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3, Summer 2011, pp.87-99, https://csis.org/files/publication/twq11summervarettoni.pdf , p.89\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23c388a5c399ed7fd219f2a5f9ee5473",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and In retrospect, the decision to welcome the former Soviet states in the Baltic into NATO appears foolish. They continue to have a prickly relationship with Russia, which has some legitimate concerns about the treatment of large Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, and about the siting of US nuclear defences. Their entry into NATO was forced upon Russia, which naturally saw it as an aggressive move designed to humiliate it, and marked the point when its pro-western policy shifted to a more nationalist and confrontational approach. [1] It also weakened the unity of NATO as there are quite legitimate doubts as to whether all the alliance’s members would really go to war with Russia over the integrity of, say, Estonia. Given this history, it would be madness to compound the problem by extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine.\n\n[1] Fraser, Malcolm, ‘Ukraine: there’s no way out unless the west understands its past mistakes’, theguardian.com, 3 March 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/ukraine-theres-no-way-out-unless-the-west-understands-its-past-mistakes\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b676d3c4664043d5e693adb1a220c934",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili did wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was unable to bring his country with him. Saakashvilli was defeated in parliamentary elections and ran up against his term limit at the end of 2013 [1] opening the way towards better relations with Russia. Public opposition to NATO membership in Ukraine since the US-led war in Iraq 2003 outweighed support for joining the alliance. [2] Ukraine is split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea, and only about 30% support overall. [3] The crisis of Ukraine’s pro-western coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia showed how divisive the question is; the President firmly supported Georgia while the PM kept quiet. [4] In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.\n\n[1] Traub, James, ‘The Georgia Syndrome’, ForeignPolicy, 13 August 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/13/the_georgia_syndrome\n\n[2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.\n\n[3] Atwell, Kyle, ‘Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine’, Atlantic Review, 7 November 2008, http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1206-Two-Different-Paths-to-NATO-Georgia-and-Ukraine.html\n\n[4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25, http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Arel%20Survival%20Final.pdf , p.16\n\n[4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25, http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Arel%20Survival%20Final.pdf , p.16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbe8a27ef288017507515c5de046e324",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and The West needs to deal with Russia\n\nWestern countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. In particular the west needs Russian help in Syria; the UNSC has only been able to get humanitarian resolutions on the country when Russia has been cooperative. [1] And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, [2] cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26311212\n\n[2] Cullison, Alan, ‘Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes’, The Telegraph, 28 November 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577066421106592452.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a48d8a46c5f009859269b0b5007f431",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and NATO is divided on how to deal with Georgia\n\nThe conflict in Georgia showed how NATO is already badly divided over how to respond to Russia. Old European states such as Germany and Italy are much readier to accommodate Russian interests than America, [1] which is supported by newer NATO members such as Poland and the Czech Republic. The same fault has been seen in relation to the response to Russian moves in Crimea; Germany has been much more cautious. [2] The United States faces a danger that if it pushes for NATO expansion in the face of Russian objections, it will split the alliance completely.\n\n[1] Traynor, Ian, ‘Nato allies divided over Ukraine and Georgia’, guardian.co.uk, 2 December 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/ukraine-georgia\n\n[2] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Europe Is Completely Divided Over How to Respond to Russia’, Carnegie Europe, 4 March 2014, http://carnegieeurope.eu/2014/03/04/europe-is-completely-divided-over-how-to-respond-to-russia/h2gi\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9126b0fa7fc5104aa908fc8ad093f464",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Expansion is in the interests of NATO\n\nExpansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade without a clear role, the alliance now once again stands for the principle of solidarity between western liberal democracies. The hopes of the 1990s for a new world order in which a democratic and liberalising Russia would see partnership with NATO and other western clubs as strongly in its own interest died during the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. Russia once again poses a threat to Europe and needs to be contained or at least shown that NATO has not forgotten about it. This is shown by President Putin’s continuing lashing out at foreign countries for funding NGOs and plans to boost defense spending. [1] Extending NATO up to Russia’s southern border will signal the West’s strength and determination and force Russia to respect the alliance and its members.\n\n[1] Cullison, Alan, ‘Putin Warms West on Interference’, The Wall Street Journal, 28 November 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577064260032325868.html?mod=googlenews_wsj\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ab9f734ba9bb1d034d7be64e7a45dc2",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and There is a strong precedent for expansion\n\nThere is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are also former Soviet states, and Russia objected to their entry into NATO quite as much as it objects today about its Black Sea neighbours. [1] Yet Russia was not allowed a veto over their futures, and it soon got over its annoyance, continuing to participate in joint forums with NATO and to cooperate with the USA over Afghanistan, North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation. So NATO is already committed to the defence of states in Russia’s near-abroad, and should not fear further expansion.\n\n[1] Black, Stephen J., ‘NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States: What Can the Great Powers Do’, Strategic Studies Institute, November 1997, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=146\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e37882ce7ca94d603d411c17c73709d7",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and The people of Ukraine and Georgia want to join\n\nMany people in both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. In Georgia a non-binding referendum on whether to join NATO showed 77% of voters in favor of joining. [1] Polls show that some 50% of Ukrainians in 2002 said that would support Ukraine’s membership in NATO if a referendum on this issue were held. [2]\n\nBoth states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. These fears have been realised with Russian forces in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states. Ukraine and Georgia as European states have a right to join NATO if they would satisfy all criteria for NATO membership. [3]\n\n[1] NATO, ‘Backgrounder, Deepening relations with Georgia’, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2011, p.15, http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20111109_backgrounder_nato_georgia-eng.pdf\n\n[2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.\n\n[3] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘Puzzles of EU and NATO Accession of Post-Communist Countries.’ Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12 (3), 2011, p 309.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
202a97d022125246d54a148e748c0339
|
The West needs to deal with Russia
Western countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. In particular the west needs Russian help in Syria; the UNSC has only been able to get humanitarian resolutions on the country when Russia has been cooperative. [1] And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, [2] cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.
[1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26311212
[2] Cullison, Alan, ‘Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes’, The Telegraph, 28 November 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577066421106592452.html
|
[
{
"docid": "61553aa9acaf4e0cd6b75af04ebb33cc",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The West would like Russian cooperation in a whole range of areas, but this isn’t a zero sum game where if one side wins the other must lose out. Russia should also worry about issues such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the threat posed by failed states, so it is in its own interests to work with international partners to find global solutions. It also wants World Trade Organisation membership to continue its economic growth, especially if oil and gas prices should fall. For these reasons Russia will not make its whole foreign policy dependent on the expansion of NATO, but can be relied upon to continue existing partnerships because they are of mutual benefit.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0c2fc27c41f2f3f6272d1d0ffbb40661",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia actually make Georgia better suited to NATO membership than before. There would have been a clear danger of allowing Georgia into NATO if the status of these breakaway regions was unsettled, with the obvious potential for conflict with their Russian patron. Once Georgia can be brought to accept the permanent loss of these territories to Russia, then it becomes a much more united country, without any other obvious grounds for Russia’s future interference. This is similarly the case with Crimea; The Russian Black Sea Fleet based in a NATO member would have clearly been a risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b51fdd39c22a25bd745b5d528789b4f",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and its economy is very vulnerable to a fall in oil and gas prices. Russia needs to sell its oil at $115 per barrel for the budget to balance. [1] Despite recent hostility to foreign oil firms attempting to operate in Russia, in the long term the country also needs western investment and technology if it is to maintain its energy output by opening and exploiting new fields. Indeed, Europe cannot be held hostage to Russian energy policy – who else could Russia sell its oil and gas to? Russia’s apparent military strength is also deceptive – its army and air force actually performed badly in Georgia and are no match for the modern forces available to NATO.\n\n[1] Nikishenkov, Oleg, ‘Oil muddles Russia’s budget debate’, themoscownews, 16 May 2011, http://themoscownews.com/business/20110516/188670156.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb8e796eb3144709cb2ed610edace4a3",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. It was obvious from this conflict that Georgia could not defend itself so the burden would fall on NATO. [1] Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. [2] If Ukraine had been a member of NATO when Russia moved troops into Crimea then NATO would be a dangerous confrontation with Russia.\n\n[1] Tayler, Jeffrey, ‘Russia: Back to the Future’, the Atlantic, September 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/russia-back-to-the-future/7029/\n\n[2] Varettoni, William, ‘Crimea’s Overlooked Instability’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3, Summer 2011, pp.87-99, https://csis.org/files/publication/twq11summervarettoni.pdf , p.89\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23c388a5c399ed7fd219f2a5f9ee5473",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and In retrospect, the decision to welcome the former Soviet states in the Baltic into NATO appears foolish. They continue to have a prickly relationship with Russia, which has some legitimate concerns about the treatment of large Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, and about the siting of US nuclear defences. Their entry into NATO was forced upon Russia, which naturally saw it as an aggressive move designed to humiliate it, and marked the point when its pro-western policy shifted to a more nationalist and confrontational approach. [1] It also weakened the unity of NATO as there are quite legitimate doubts as to whether all the alliance’s members would really go to war with Russia over the integrity of, say, Estonia. Given this history, it would be madness to compound the problem by extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine.\n\n[1] Fraser, Malcolm, ‘Ukraine: there’s no way out unless the west understands its past mistakes’, theguardian.com, 3 March 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/ukraine-theres-no-way-out-unless-the-west-understands-its-past-mistakes\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b676d3c4664043d5e693adb1a220c934",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili did wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was unable to bring his country with him. Saakashvilli was defeated in parliamentary elections and ran up against his term limit at the end of 2013 [1] opening the way towards better relations with Russia. Public opposition to NATO membership in Ukraine since the US-led war in Iraq 2003 outweighed support for joining the alliance. [2] Ukraine is split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea, and only about 30% support overall. [3] The crisis of Ukraine’s pro-western coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia showed how divisive the question is; the President firmly supported Georgia while the PM kept quiet. [4] In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.\n\n[1] Traub, James, ‘The Georgia Syndrome’, ForeignPolicy, 13 August 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/13/the_georgia_syndrome\n\n[2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.\n\n[3] Atwell, Kyle, ‘Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine’, Atlantic Review, 7 November 2008, http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1206-Two-Different-Paths-to-NATO-Georgia-and-Ukraine.html\n\n[4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25, http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Arel%20Survival%20Final.pdf , p.16\n\n[4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25, http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Arel%20Survival%20Final.pdf , p.16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e08b4affa76a583e9f6e87fb153ad9a",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and The West is reliant on Russia’s Gas reserves\n\nNATO’s European members have an additional reason not to offend Russia by continuing to expand the alliance in defiance of Moscow. Much of Europe depends on imports of Russian gas for their energy needs, Russia currently supplies 25% of European gas and this may rise to as high as 55% by 2020. [1] Unfortunately the Kremlin has made clear over the past three years that it is prepared to use its control of energy as a political weapon. It has already limited the flow of energy to states (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia) who have annoyed it on several occasions, and may well be prepared to turn lights, heating and factories off across Europe in retaliation for interference in its near abroad. [2]\n\nRussia’s energy riches in a time of high oil prices also mean that it is far richer and self-confident than at any time since the fall of communism. The profits of its energy wealth have also enabled its military to be strengthened. This means that even if Moscow backed down in response to western assertiveness in the past, it is now determined to overturn past humiliations.\n\n[1] Paillard, Christophe-Alexandre, ‘Rethinking Russia: Russia and Europe’s Mutual Energy Dependence’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, No.2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp.65-84, http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russia-and-europe%E2%80%99s-mutual-energy-dependence\n\n[2] Weir, Fred, ‘Why Russia is cutting off gas supplies to Belarus’, The Christian Science Monitor, 21 June 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0621/Why-Russia-is-cutting-off-gas-supplies-to-Belarus\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a48d8a46c5f009859269b0b5007f431",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and NATO is divided on how to deal with Georgia\n\nThe conflict in Georgia showed how NATO is already badly divided over how to respond to Russia. Old European states such as Germany and Italy are much readier to accommodate Russian interests than America, [1] which is supported by newer NATO members such as Poland and the Czech Republic. The same fault has been seen in relation to the response to Russian moves in Crimea; Germany has been much more cautious. [2] The United States faces a danger that if it pushes for NATO expansion in the face of Russian objections, it will split the alliance completely.\n\n[1] Traynor, Ian, ‘Nato allies divided over Ukraine and Georgia’, guardian.co.uk, 2 December 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/ukraine-georgia\n\n[2] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Europe Is Completely Divided Over How to Respond to Russia’, Carnegie Europe, 4 March 2014, http://carnegieeurope.eu/2014/03/04/europe-is-completely-divided-over-how-to-respond-to-russia/h2gi\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9126b0fa7fc5104aa908fc8ad093f464",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and Expansion is in the interests of NATO\n\nExpansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade without a clear role, the alliance now once again stands for the principle of solidarity between western liberal democracies. The hopes of the 1990s for a new world order in which a democratic and liberalising Russia would see partnership with NATO and other western clubs as strongly in its own interest died during the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. Russia once again poses a threat to Europe and needs to be contained or at least shown that NATO has not forgotten about it. This is shown by President Putin’s continuing lashing out at foreign countries for funding NGOs and plans to boost defense spending. [1] Extending NATO up to Russia’s southern border will signal the West’s strength and determination and force Russia to respect the alliance and its members.\n\n[1] Cullison, Alan, ‘Putin Warms West on Interference’, The Wall Street Journal, 28 November 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577064260032325868.html?mod=googlenews_wsj\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ab9f734ba9bb1d034d7be64e7a45dc2",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and There is a strong precedent for expansion\n\nThere is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are also former Soviet states, and Russia objected to their entry into NATO quite as much as it objects today about its Black Sea neighbours. [1] Yet Russia was not allowed a veto over their futures, and it soon got over its annoyance, continuing to participate in joint forums with NATO and to cooperate with the USA over Afghanistan, North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation. So NATO is already committed to the defence of states in Russia’s near-abroad, and should not fear further expansion.\n\n[1] Black, Stephen J., ‘NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States: What Can the Great Powers Do’, Strategic Studies Institute, November 1997, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=146\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e37882ce7ca94d603d411c17c73709d7",
"text": "onal europe politics defence house would extend nato membership georgia and The people of Ukraine and Georgia want to join\n\nMany people in both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. In Georgia a non-binding referendum on whether to join NATO showed 77% of voters in favor of joining. [1] Polls show that some 50% of Ukrainians in 2002 said that would support Ukraine’s membership in NATO if a referendum on this issue were held. [2]\n\nBoth states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. These fears have been realised with Russian forces in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states. Ukraine and Georgia as European states have a right to join NATO if they would satisfy all criteria for NATO membership. [3]\n\n[1] NATO, ‘Backgrounder, Deepening relations with Georgia’, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2011, p.15, http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20111109_backgrounder_nato_georgia-eng.pdf\n\n[2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.\n\n[3] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘Puzzles of EU and NATO Accession of Post-Communist Countries.’ Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12 (3), 2011, p 309.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
85ad66a4de0e1bcf88593097f0b399e4
|
No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever
When fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was fought using sticks and stones, but when this, and the peace process that followed it failed, or rather did not show the results that was hoped for, the second was a major step up to suicide bombing. This is because when the terrorists fail they are unlikely to pack up; instead they will try to find a bigger lever to course the state into making the move they want. In this case Arafat hoped a round of violence would bring about concessions. [1] The best way to prevent this cycle of violence is to negotiate, even if this is mostly to buy time. Even when there is no cease fire there will be no reason for the terrorists to escalate if their demands are being taken seriously.
[1] Pressman, Jeremy, ‘The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. CCIII, No.2, Fall 2003, http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/220/378
|
[
{
"docid": "1738b698ffc14a8b2cd177f75bbf7a5a",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. It is notable that each time Israel has failed to destroy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza they have quickly been resupplied b allies in Syria and Iran making them more difficult to fight next time. [1]\n\n[1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/31/world/fg-hezbollah31\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9fb4d92c87c08fd5147b6e460f5845c2",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1139362a07b8840e2e18d071e60343",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ed6a661192531fc5ace8c4e75e46ea",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Whether this happens really depends on the negotiations. Unfortunately negotiations without result are likely to strengthen the radicals who can show that the peaceful route is not going anywhere. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to give them what they want, and if this has to be done the concessions could have been given before there was a turn to terrorism.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42f68891ed041e28489f3ffc02320ecb",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists In the long term negotiation and compromise of some form is needed to bring about a final peace but it is not correct that negotiations in the short term saves lives. First of all not all terrorist groups will initiate a cease fire if they are negotiating with the government, about half continue their violence while negotiating, [1] and even if they do there is no saying all their supporters will take part. Negotiating also shows that the government is weak; the determination to 'save lives' can end up costing more lives as the terrorists see that they violence is paying dividends. They may come to the conclusion that if they kill more they will gain more concessions.\n\n[1] Cronin, Audrey Kurth, ‘Negotiating with groups that use terrorism: Lessons for policy-makers’, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Background papers, 2008, http://www.hdcentre.org/uploads/tx_news/91AudreyKurth-CroninNegotiatingwithgroupsthatuseterrorism.pdf p.6\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5181d4263613b29aba5387d8676b0107",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will never have any reason to give them what they want. The only response to such a precondition is to force the government to drop that condition through violence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a72e34cba9f669bba682e3f5c8584b0d",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state.\n\n[1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21583715-weakened-terrorist-group-remains-presence-basque-region-always-around\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42a3b6458762ea4a2ca210713e103deb",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secured the release of hostages and the life of a state's citizens should be placed above comparatively small amounts of money. Where prisoners are being released as a confidence building measure the terrorists will usually be making some concession as well such as giving up some arms so the state does not end up worse off but there is more trust to enable negotiations to prevent more violence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5025df23c7d58b3fb96aab36db18f327",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94a8dd1077f1eb257c3ef5420701204a",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the bombing. [1] The political process through the Stormont Parliament is now the accepted way to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.\n\n[1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing’, theguardian.com, 8 June 2009, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jun/08/omagh-real-ira-leaders-liable\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e550ecd2913000f34ec6a44bb2ef3d7",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence\n\nJust as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security. [1]\n\n[1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486828 p.48\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "696df5f641aadc16f367e7bd5cae44cd",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation encourages moderation\n\nIn every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of the state to strengthen the more acceptable parts of the movement whether can seriously talk to. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to negotiate. This then makes their path to a solution the more credible course for the movement as a whole to take. To demonstrate a negative example the United States and Israel were unwilling to negotiate with moderates within the PLO for fifteen years during which time not only was there a lot more bloodshed but much more radical groups formed on the Palestinian side making negotiations much more complicated in the long run as there would be multiple groups who would need to sign up to a final peace treaty. [1]\n\n[1] Chamberlin, Paul Thomas, ‘When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists’, The New York Times, 3 September 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/opinion/when-it-pays-to-talk-to-terrorists.html?_r=0\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68a2e2048d9d9e56cc139eae36f5dae6",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation saves lives\n\nAlmost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In the short term negotiating can mean a cease fire, and if there are hostages their release. Over the long term negotiation is necessary if there is to be any peaceful conclusion to the conflict. As the right to life is the most fundamental right, and the duty of the states to protect its citizens is primary role of the state it is clear that the protection of these lives should be the main consideration for the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fc616d0cfecdd017eee4292cc5697b7",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem\n\nUN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it. If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress.” [1] Terrorist campaigns don't just come out of nowhere (with the exception of some single individual acts), there is a grievance behind the acts. The terrorist is trying to have this grievance dealt with and believes the best way to this end is through violence. It is clear that the easiest way to end the conflict is simply to resolve the grievance. Even when there are no negotiations the state will usually attempt to resolve some of these grievances, however doing so unilaterally will simply show that the terrorist's violence is working without getting any guarantees of an end to the violence in return. Negotiation therefore benefits both sides. It is notable that 43% of terrorist groups that have ended since 1968 have done so as a result of negotiations compared to only 7% being defeated militarily. [2]\n\n[1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Ability to reason vital in fighting terrorism, Secretary-General tells conference’, un.org, SG/SM/8885, 22 September 2003, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm8885.doc.htm\n\n[2] Jones, Seth G., and Libicki, Martin C., How Terrorist Groups End, RAND, 2008, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG741-1.pdf p.xiii, xiv\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9524605933bd3139a37e3825a2495c6",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place\n\nTerrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This is what happened in Northern Ireland where the peace process tamed the IRA and spawned the Real IRA, [1] a group that was more even more willing to kill innocents than its predecessor through attacks such as the Omagh bombing which killed 29 people in 1998. [2]\n\n[1] Moran, Michael, ‘Terrorist Groups and Political Legitimacy’, Council on Foreign Relations, 16 March 2006, http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups-political-legitimacy/p10159#p5\n\n[2] Elliott, Francis, ‘Real IRA admits to Omagh bomb and disbands’, The Telegraph, 20 October 2002, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410723/Real-IRA-admits-to-Omagh-bomb-and-disbands.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "165900b968eed314de955427199d7ad4",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation encourages more terrorism\n\nThere are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as argued in the previous point negotiations with terrorist groups gives legitimacy to political violence. This in turn will encourage other groups to resort to violence to achieve their political goals as they have seen it work for another group. Thus for example when the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were legitimised by a peace process and the recognition of a form of Palestinian government other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas came to believe that they could take terrorist actions further in order to liberate Palestine through an armed struggle. [1]\n\n[1] Schweitzer, Yoram, ‘The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada’, Strategis Assessment, Vol.13, No.3, October 2010, http://www.inss.org.il.cdn.reblaze.com/upload/(FILE)1289896644.pdf p.40\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bd0878850c9ee2766b43da850d81b55",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them\n\nAny group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be seen all over the world; thus ETA regularly declares ceasefires and breaks them just as often (1989, 1996, 1998, 2006), [1] or civil wars that have seemed to be coming to a close reignite because one or more groups believe they can gain more from another round of fighting. Thus the Tamil Tigers fought what might be considered to be four separate wars with the Sri Lankan state with a lot of ceasefires along the way. [2] It was however not negotiations but the pursuit of a ruthless military campaign that finally brought the reunification of the country. [3]\n\n[1] Dingle, Sarah, ‘ETA militants declare end to armed struggle’, ABC The World Today, 21 October 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3344858.htm\n\n[2] ‘Sri Lanka profile Timeline’, BBC News, 16 May 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12004081\n\n[3] Smith, Niel A., ‘Understanding Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’, NDU Press, 2009, http://www.ndu.edu/press/understanding-sri-lanka.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7b43937cb015e9756006ba4370779a7",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened\n\nGovernments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citizens. To negotiate with terrorists is to provide them with legitimacy making violence an accepted way of achieving political aims. Before legitimacy is granted upon the terrorist group they must first give up their weapons and renounce violence. By taking such a position the state ensures that no lives will be taken during the political process.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b42bc7e38e30a0aa943545ce3c95800",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists\n\nNegotiation can help the terrorists who are negotiating in several ways. First it buys time; if the terrorist group has previously been hard pressed by the state's military then this time can be used to rest, recover and resupply, in effect for preparing for the next campaign. This is what happens whenever there is a ceasefire, or a unilateral break, in the campaign in Lebanon or Palestine as those states which are aligned to the terrorist groups such as Syria and Iran seek to resupply their allies. [1]\n\nSecond in some cases negotiation can involve the state handing over resources to the terrorist group. This is most often the case with hostage negotiations where the terrorists demand the release of other terrorists who have been captured so boosting the groups manpower or else demand a ransom in return for the release of hostages. Somalia has over the last decade regularly seen payouts of ransoms to groups of pirates who have links to islamists [2] and are accused of having links to terrorists. While pirates are the highest profile ransoms the same occurs with terrorist groups, it is estimated that $70million has been paid to secure the release of western captives since 2010. [3] Releasing terrorists can also sometimes be used as a confidence building measure leading up to negotiations, which can mean helping the terrorist groups even before there are negotiations. This has most recently occurred with Israel releasing 26 Palestinian prisoners, including Yusef Irshaid who murdered an Israeli, three suspected ‘collaborators’ and planned car bombings, in order to restart peace talks. [4]\n\n[1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/31/world/fg-hezbollah31\n\n[2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Terror on the High Seas: Somali Pirates Form Unholy Alliance with Islamists’, Spiegel Online, 20 April 2009, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/terror-on-the-high-seas-somali-pirates-form-unholy-alliance-with-islamists-a-620027.html\n\n[3] Press Association ‘David Cameron To Tell G8 ‘Stop Paying Ransoms To Terrorists’’, Huffington Post, 18 June 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/18/david-cameron-to-tell-g8-ransoms-terrorist-_n_3457570.html\n\n[4] Harris, Ben, ‘Who Israel released’, Jewish Telegraphic Association, 14 August 2013, http://www.jta.org/2013/08/14/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/who-israel-released\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
de88863baf17603837f06da6c413db40
|
Negotiation encourages more terrorism
There are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as argued in the previous point negotiations with terrorist groups gives legitimacy to political violence. This in turn will encourage other groups to resort to violence to achieve their political goals as they have seen it work for another group. Thus for example when the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were legitimised by a peace process and the recognition of a form of Palestinian government other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas came to believe that they could take terrorist actions further in order to liberate Palestine through an armed struggle. [1]
[1] Schweitzer, Yoram, ‘The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada’, Strategis Assessment, Vol.13, No.3, October 2010, http://www.inss.org.il.cdn.reblaze.com/upload/(FILE)1289896644.pdf p.40
|
[
{
"docid": "5025df23c7d58b3fb96aab36db18f327",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5181d4263613b29aba5387d8676b0107",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will never have any reason to give them what they want. The only response to such a precondition is to force the government to drop that condition through violence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a72e34cba9f669bba682e3f5c8584b0d",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state.\n\n[1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21583715-weakened-terrorist-group-remains-presence-basque-region-always-around\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42a3b6458762ea4a2ca210713e103deb",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secured the release of hostages and the life of a state's citizens should be placed above comparatively small amounts of money. Where prisoners are being released as a confidence building measure the terrorists will usually be making some concession as well such as giving up some arms so the state does not end up worse off but there is more trust to enable negotiations to prevent more violence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94a8dd1077f1eb257c3ef5420701204a",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the bombing. [1] The political process through the Stormont Parliament is now the accepted way to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.\n\n[1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing’, theguardian.com, 8 June 2009, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jun/08/omagh-real-ira-leaders-liable\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1738b698ffc14a8b2cd177f75bbf7a5a",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. It is notable that each time Israel has failed to destroy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza they have quickly been resupplied b allies in Syria and Iran making them more difficult to fight next time. [1]\n\n[1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/31/world/fg-hezbollah31\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fb4d92c87c08fd5147b6e460f5845c2",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1139362a07b8840e2e18d071e60343",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ed6a661192531fc5ace8c4e75e46ea",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Whether this happens really depends on the negotiations. Unfortunately negotiations without result are likely to strengthen the radicals who can show that the peaceful route is not going anywhere. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to give them what they want, and if this has to be done the concessions could have been given before there was a turn to terrorism.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42f68891ed041e28489f3ffc02320ecb",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists In the long term negotiation and compromise of some form is needed to bring about a final peace but it is not correct that negotiations in the short term saves lives. First of all not all terrorist groups will initiate a cease fire if they are negotiating with the government, about half continue their violence while negotiating, [1] and even if they do there is no saying all their supporters will take part. Negotiating also shows that the government is weak; the determination to 'save lives' can end up costing more lives as the terrorists see that they violence is paying dividends. They may come to the conclusion that if they kill more they will gain more concessions.\n\n[1] Cronin, Audrey Kurth, ‘Negotiating with groups that use terrorism: Lessons for policy-makers’, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Background papers, 2008, http://www.hdcentre.org/uploads/tx_news/91AudreyKurth-CroninNegotiatingwithgroupsthatuseterrorism.pdf p.6\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9524605933bd3139a37e3825a2495c6",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place\n\nTerrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This is what happened in Northern Ireland where the peace process tamed the IRA and spawned the Real IRA, [1] a group that was more even more willing to kill innocents than its predecessor through attacks such as the Omagh bombing which killed 29 people in 1998. [2]\n\n[1] Moran, Michael, ‘Terrorist Groups and Political Legitimacy’, Council on Foreign Relations, 16 March 2006, http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups-political-legitimacy/p10159#p5\n\n[2] Elliott, Francis, ‘Real IRA admits to Omagh bomb and disbands’, The Telegraph, 20 October 2002, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410723/Real-IRA-admits-to-Omagh-bomb-and-disbands.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bd0878850c9ee2766b43da850d81b55",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them\n\nAny group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be seen all over the world; thus ETA regularly declares ceasefires and breaks them just as often (1989, 1996, 1998, 2006), [1] or civil wars that have seemed to be coming to a close reignite because one or more groups believe they can gain more from another round of fighting. Thus the Tamil Tigers fought what might be considered to be four separate wars with the Sri Lankan state with a lot of ceasefires along the way. [2] It was however not negotiations but the pursuit of a ruthless military campaign that finally brought the reunification of the country. [3]\n\n[1] Dingle, Sarah, ‘ETA militants declare end to armed struggle’, ABC The World Today, 21 October 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3344858.htm\n\n[2] ‘Sri Lanka profile Timeline’, BBC News, 16 May 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12004081\n\n[3] Smith, Niel A., ‘Understanding Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’, NDU Press, 2009, http://www.ndu.edu/press/understanding-sri-lanka.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7b43937cb015e9756006ba4370779a7",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened\n\nGovernments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citizens. To negotiate with terrorists is to provide them with legitimacy making violence an accepted way of achieving political aims. Before legitimacy is granted upon the terrorist group they must first give up their weapons and renounce violence. By taking such a position the state ensures that no lives will be taken during the political process.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b42bc7e38e30a0aa943545ce3c95800",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists\n\nNegotiation can help the terrorists who are negotiating in several ways. First it buys time; if the terrorist group has previously been hard pressed by the state's military then this time can be used to rest, recover and resupply, in effect for preparing for the next campaign. This is what happens whenever there is a ceasefire, or a unilateral break, in the campaign in Lebanon or Palestine as those states which are aligned to the terrorist groups such as Syria and Iran seek to resupply their allies. [1]\n\nSecond in some cases negotiation can involve the state handing over resources to the terrorist group. This is most often the case with hostage negotiations where the terrorists demand the release of other terrorists who have been captured so boosting the groups manpower or else demand a ransom in return for the release of hostages. Somalia has over the last decade regularly seen payouts of ransoms to groups of pirates who have links to islamists [2] and are accused of having links to terrorists. While pirates are the highest profile ransoms the same occurs with terrorist groups, it is estimated that $70million has been paid to secure the release of western captives since 2010. [3] Releasing terrorists can also sometimes be used as a confidence building measure leading up to negotiations, which can mean helping the terrorist groups even before there are negotiations. This has most recently occurred with Israel releasing 26 Palestinian prisoners, including Yusef Irshaid who murdered an Israeli, three suspected ‘collaborators’ and planned car bombings, in order to restart peace talks. [4]\n\n[1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/31/world/fg-hezbollah31\n\n[2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Terror on the High Seas: Somali Pirates Form Unholy Alliance with Islamists’, Spiegel Online, 20 April 2009, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/terror-on-the-high-seas-somali-pirates-form-unholy-alliance-with-islamists-a-620027.html\n\n[3] Press Association ‘David Cameron To Tell G8 ‘Stop Paying Ransoms To Terrorists’’, Huffington Post, 18 June 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/18/david-cameron-to-tell-g8-ransoms-terrorist-_n_3457570.html\n\n[4] Harris, Ben, ‘Who Israel released’, Jewish Telegraphic Association, 14 August 2013, http://www.jta.org/2013/08/14/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/who-israel-released\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae0b512fa999b0a73c2a438973c33b79",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever\n\nWhen fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was fought using sticks and stones, but when this, and the peace process that followed it failed, or rather did not show the results that was hoped for, the second was a major step up to suicide bombing. This is because when the terrorists fail they are unlikely to pack up; instead they will try to find a bigger lever to course the state into making the move they want. In this case Arafat hoped a round of violence would bring about concessions. [1] The best way to prevent this cycle of violence is to negotiate, even if this is mostly to buy time. Even when there is no cease fire there will be no reason for the terrorists to escalate if their demands are being taken seriously.\n\n[1] Pressman, Jeremy, ‘The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. CCIII, No.2, Fall 2003, http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/220/378\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e550ecd2913000f34ec6a44bb2ef3d7",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence\n\nJust as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security. [1]\n\n[1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486828 p.48\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "696df5f641aadc16f367e7bd5cae44cd",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation encourages moderation\n\nIn every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of the state to strengthen the more acceptable parts of the movement whether can seriously talk to. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to negotiate. This then makes their path to a solution the more credible course for the movement as a whole to take. To demonstrate a negative example the United States and Israel were unwilling to negotiate with moderates within the PLO for fifteen years during which time not only was there a lot more bloodshed but much more radical groups formed on the Palestinian side making negotiations much more complicated in the long run as there would be multiple groups who would need to sign up to a final peace treaty. [1]\n\n[1] Chamberlin, Paul Thomas, ‘When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists’, The New York Times, 3 September 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/opinion/when-it-pays-to-talk-to-terrorists.html?_r=0\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68a2e2048d9d9e56cc139eae36f5dae6",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation saves lives\n\nAlmost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In the short term negotiating can mean a cease fire, and if there are hostages their release. Over the long term negotiation is necessary if there is to be any peaceful conclusion to the conflict. As the right to life is the most fundamental right, and the duty of the states to protect its citizens is primary role of the state it is clear that the protection of these lives should be the main consideration for the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fc616d0cfecdd017eee4292cc5697b7",
"text": "terrorism house would negotiate terrorists Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem\n\nUN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it. If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress.” [1] Terrorist campaigns don't just come out of nowhere (with the exception of some single individual acts), there is a grievance behind the acts. The terrorist is trying to have this grievance dealt with and believes the best way to this end is through violence. It is clear that the easiest way to end the conflict is simply to resolve the grievance. Even when there are no negotiations the state will usually attempt to resolve some of these grievances, however doing so unilaterally will simply show that the terrorist's violence is working without getting any guarantees of an end to the violence in return. Negotiation therefore benefits both sides. It is notable that 43% of terrorist groups that have ended since 1968 have done so as a result of negotiations compared to only 7% being defeated militarily. [2]\n\n[1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Ability to reason vital in fighting terrorism, Secretary-General tells conference’, un.org, SG/SM/8885, 22 September 2003, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm8885.doc.htm\n\n[2] Jones, Seth G., and Libicki, Martin C., How Terrorist Groups End, RAND, 2008, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG741-1.pdf p.xiii, xiv\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8b8efb98e2fd93b18f9259bfa54c18cf
|
Allows strength in numbers
Russia was originally allowed in to the G8 to encourage it to reform, or rather to provide a place where Russia’s leader can be backed into reforming. The G8 is a western institution, a forum in which an aggressive Russia has no natural allies. This means that it is the perfect place for the western democracies to voice their concerns; Russia will find itself isolated at the table and on the back foot. While at its own summit it will be even more likely to give concessions in the interests of making its own summit a success. At the last G8 summit Putin hosted in 2006 Russia made some concessions to the US in order to try and obtain WTO membership. [1]
[1] Rutland, Peter, ‘Russia and the WTO: deal, or no deal?’, National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report no.12, March 2007. Pp31-36, p.32
|
[
{
"docid": "523455d59ae8db60446d28746bc8f7c6",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 While strength in numbers may seem to be useful when there are conflicts between Russia and the other G8 members this is not what the G8 should be about. Using the G8 in such a way will simply encourage Russia to dig its heels in and encourage the growth of other rival institutions. An example would be the BRIC summits between Brazil, Russia, India and China; would these have happened at all if the G8 has been more inclusive and recognised that these nations need to be involved in the G8? It is notable that the very first summit included discussion of the desire by India and Brazil to play a greater role in world affairs. [1]\n\n[1] Presidents of Russia, Brazil, China and Prime Minister of India, ‘Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders’, kremlin.ru, 16 June 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e8e74114c2e14927becbfc2bb0452140",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 The address by Putin was before Russia’s illegal intervention into Crimea and as such ‘settling regional conflicts’ almost certainly refers to Syria, not Crimea. Russia’s role in Syria has hardly been constructive, it has until recently stopped any resolutions on Syria [1] , but not so onerous as to require throwing the country out of the G8. With Putin in charge of the summit and so setting the agenda we can be sure that discussion of Crimea will be kept off the agenda so ensuring that any discussion is purely informal. Putin is hardly likely to make concessions at his own summit.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "662b4ef7176a05f76866713bae78892c",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 Getting rid of Russia would not make the G8 irrelevant; it would simply return it to its core. The remaining members would me much more likely to agree and actually come up with meaningful outcomes to the summits. It might be a less effective steering committee for the global economy but at the same time it could ensure greater unity between the western powers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f82f85b4a44b6d3100299b9ecd3eed3",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 But Russia, as with any country – particularly any powerful country – is interested in symbolism and international prestige. Many analysts suggest that Putin’s takeover of Crimea may be about revenge for having ‘lost’ Ukraine, or out of a desire to set up a new greater Russia. [1] In each of these cases it is about prestige as the practical gains to Russia are small. Russia wants to be seen as a great power, kicking it out of one of the globe’s top clubs damages that ambition.\n\n[1] Speck, Ulrich, ‘Opinion Putin planning ‘Soviet Union lite’’, CNN, 4 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f728f56e5145487940161e89ecc019b",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 The G8 countries are the world’s most powerful countries. As such most of the powers involved in the G8 have at some point been involved in aggressive foreign interventions. The Iraq invasion did not lead to calls to throw the US and UK out, neither did the bombing of Libya lead to France’s expulsion. Using Russian actions in Ukraine as an excuse would be simple hypocrisy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "144be1aef5502d97edb79c999457d59b",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 Sanctions by necessity harm both sides. However Russia is a much smaller economy than either the EU or US (both of which are seven-eight times bigger). Any economic retaliation and escalation will therefore harm Russia more. The threat to cut off gas supplies is a major threat but Russia can’t simply sell the gas elsewhere because its pipelines mostly go to Europe. In the 2009 ‘gas war’ which involved supplies to Europe being restricted (though not completely cut off) for 20 days Russia’s state gas company Gazprom lost $1.1billion in revenues. [1] A more complete cut off would have higher losses.\n\n[1] Pugliaresi, Lucian et al., ‘Is it time for Gazprom to hit the reset button?’, Oil&Gas Journal, 3 September 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b91673174042f6829fbbe6fc9f6fb8",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 It is wrong to say that Russia is not an industrialised country, it is considered by the World Bank to be a high income country. [1] It is also a democracy that holds regular elections. President Putin is held in high regard by Russians 67.8% of Russians approve of Putin’s job performance [2] – far higher than any other member of the G8.\n\n[1] The World Bank, ‘Russian Federation’, data.worldbank.org, accessed 7 March 2014\n\n[2] Luhn, Alec, ‘Ukraine crisis and Olympics boost Vladimir Putin’s popularity in Russia’, The Guardian, 6 March 2014 , note however the pollster is state run!\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72f23ea582629c0775e07727c6112e9c",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 If there needs to be a response to Russian actions it does not need to be this response. Much more useful would be economic sanctions against Russia; either targeted freezing of state assets and the assets of leaders, or more comprehensive sanctions that would damage Russia’s economy. Such actions would provide a real cost to aggressive action, not simply a symbolic cost. [1]\n\n[1] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Russia will bow to economic pressure over Ukraine, so the EU must impose it’, theguardian.com, 6 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aff9b21c997846f135e8dfa46ff56f62",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 Simply narrows the G8 making it irrelevant\n\nThe G8 has been losing its relevance with the rise of other countries economically. It can no longer claim to be the top eight economies as Canada is the world’s eleventh largest economy with India, Brazil and China all bigger. It is even lower (14th) if done by Purchasing Power Parity. [1] Newer more inclusive institutions such as the G20 that include other vital economies like China have been taking over its primacy on the economy. The G8 is no longer the best grouping to steer the global economy as was recognised during the 2008 financial crisis where the G20 took the lead. [2] Throwing out Russia would simply be making the G8 narrower and less important globally so reducing the institution’s influence.\n\n[1] The World Bank, ‘GDP (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, 2012 figures\n\n[2] Cooper, Andrew F., ‘The G20 as an improvised crisis committee and/or a contested ‘steering committee’ for the world’, International Affairs, Vol.86, No.3, 2010 pp.741-757\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0d103fe1ac9c57cf0362ef516dbb289",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 There needs to be a place to talk\n\nGerman Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier argues that \"The format of the G8 is actually the only one in which we in the West can speak directly with Russia\". [1] Russia’s proposed priorities for the G8 summit included “fighting the drug menace, combating terrorism and extremism, settling regional conflicts, safeguarding people's health, and establishing a global management system to address risks associated with natural and man-made disasters” [2] since Russia is clearly willing to discuss regional conflicts then it makes sense to use the summit to discuss Ukraine. Since Russia has not turned up to other suggested talks, such as a meeting of the Budapest agreement group [3] (UK, US, Ukraine, Russia – the agreement guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity [4] ), it makes sense to go to Russia’s summit which Russia can’t avoid.\n\n[1] kms/ccp, ‘Putin agrees to Ukraine 'fact-finding' mission after talk with Merkel’, Deutsche Welle, 2 March 2013\n\n[2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Address by President Vladimir Putin on Russia assuming the G8 Presidency’, en.g8russia.ru, 1 January 2014\n\n[3] G uardian Staff, ‘Only talks between Russia and Ukraine can solve crisis, say US and UK’, theguardian.com, 5 March 2014\n\n[4] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c88a1bd57009f016fbbdc51200076ec",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 Will make no difference to Russia\n\nThrowing Russia out of the G8 to punish the country – whether for aggressive acts in its near abroad, for human rights violations, or simply for corruption and economic crimes – is unlikely to make any difference to Russia. [1] Being in the G8 provides very little tangible benefit; it is all about the symbolism of it being the top club. Russia however has created its own top club in the BRICS conferences that are very similar to the G8 as a series of informal gatherings of major world leaders. Russia could rightly argue that despite having fewer members it is broader and more inclusive as it includes members from the Americas (Brazil), from Africa (South Africa), and the important players from of Eurasia (Russia, China, India). Since these powers are the rising countries why would Russia want to be associated with the declining west?\n\n[1] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a60fa835ba123080933333600f2c813b",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 Aggressive acts violate the meaning of the G8\n\nThe focus of the G8 is on economic, monetary, financial and globilisation issues. Aggressive actions scare the markets – as shown by the rouble reaching new lows against the dollar and Euro – so run counter to the focus of the G8. [1] Russia has in the past also used its gas supplies as an economic weapon, this and acts of aggression such as in Crimea are repudiating the idea of globilisation. The G8 is important because there is “a good understanding among G8 members” clearly when one of those members is engaging in conflictual acts that understanding is damaged. [2] The G7 members on 2nd March 2014 in a statement responding to Russia’s aggression in the Crimea stated “Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate”. [3] Any member that does not follow the principles of an organisation should be suspended as a member.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Russian rouble hits new low against the dollar and euro’, 3 March 2014\n\n[2] Government of France, ‘The G8’, g8.fr, 2003\n\n[3] Office of the Press Secretary, ‘G-7 Leaders Statement’, whitehouse.gov, 2 March 2014\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbb937a27c513c73e666d3296b053562",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 Russia should never have been a member\n\nThe G8 has been meant to be a group of industrialised democracies. Russia is neither particularly industrialised, nor particularly democratic. Russia remains reliant on natural resources for much of its wealth; 30% of its GDP and 70% of exports. [1] Its most recent presidential election – that voted in Putin for a third term – was not exactly free and fair. The OSCE election observers concluded “There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt”. [2] Its qualifications for membership have been questioned from the very beginning, when Russia joined the G7 were able to argue inclusion would bring it closer to the west. Yet Russia remains essentially an outsider in the group, it does not share western values and goes its own way. [3]\n\n[1] Aron, Leon, ‘The political economy of Russian oil and gas’, American Enterprise Institute, 11 April 2013\n\n[2] Eschenbaecher, Jens-Hagen, ‘Russia’s presidential election marked by unequal campaign conditions, active citizens’ engagement, international observers say’, OSCE, 4 March 2012\n\n[3] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Judy Asks: Is Russia Relevant in the G8?’, Carnegie Europe, 19 June 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b781929eea4a4015b7f709b4a2c597d",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 There needs to be a response to bad behaviour internationally\n\nThe intention of international institutions is to bind countries together, to ensure they speak to each other and resolve differences, and to ensure they feel they cannot engage in aggressive actions. However when a state breaks these norms there needs to be a reaction. Russia has been willing to engage in aggressive acts time and time again. The recent occupation of Crimea is very similar to Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008; in both conflicts Russia used the excuse of Russians being in danger, in both cases Russia was there as a ‘peacekeeper’, and in both cases the action was in another sovereign country whose government did not wish Russian troops there. The result is an expansion of Russian influence and some form of annexation. [1] There was no action after the Russian conflict with Georgia except a mediated peace. [2] There now needs to be a response to actions in Crimea; throwing Russia out of the G8 is the least response.\n\n[1] Friedman, Uri, ‘Putin’s Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia’s Takeover of Crimea’, The Atlantic, 2 March 2014\n\n[2] King, Charles, ‘The Five-Day War’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008\n\nTraynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack, ‘Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire’, theguardian.com, 16 August 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e93d4e809ace434acc6850ef8ab05b5",
"text": "onal global politics government leadership house would throw russia out g8 The biggest action the west can take without sanctions\n\nEuropean states, which make up half of the members of the G8, have been reluctant to take stronger economic steps against aggressive Russian actions. Russia has warned the US “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.” [1] The European countries have more reason to be concerned because they rely on Russia for their gas supplies; 39% of German gas and 9% of total energy consumption is reliant on Russia. [2] If Russia were to retaliate to sanctions it could seriously damage the European economy. This means that throwing Russia out of the G8 or other institutions is the biggest sanction that does not have any risk of economic retaliation and escalation that damage everyone.\n\n[1] RIA Novosti, ‘Putin Adviser Urges Dumping US Bonds In Reaction to Sanctions’, 4 March 2013\n\n[2] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b5ff35daa0571ce38fb3af41536bd0b5
|
Young people should hear of the opportunities available in the armed services whilst in school
School children are entitled, as part of their education, to a wide range of careers information, including potential roles in the military. It is a school's duty to offer not only paths to employment, but opportunities to engage with future employers like the military. With university places now increasingly competitive, schools must remain more vigilant than ever that they do not encourage purely academic paths to future careers. Furthermore, nationalism is a powerful factor in school curriculums worldwide, and permitting militaries into schools to talk to students is not an extension of already-permitted activities like the recital of the Lord's Prayer in British state schools or the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools. As such, it comes as little surprise that the predominant reason given for enlistment is service to country1. If schools are asked to ensure that such activities are carried out to foster national sentiment, it follows that military service should be, if not actively encouraged, respected sufficiently to grant the armed services an opportunity to engage with students. 1 Accardi, M. (2011, June 15) Army recruiters become a 'partner' In education Retrieved June 16, 2011, from The Huntsville Times:
|
[
{
"docid": "561b35be3d0eb6dc98a5450d2475311f",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The armed services have no right to preach to the youth, particularly when they are in a trusting environment like a school. To permit any organization to advertise to schoolchildren about job prospects is misguided at a time when their critical faculties are nascent and they are endowed with the belief that what is taught at school is to be imbibed with little rebuttal. Mandated school activities like the Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance do serve to promote nationalism, but do not do so in such a way as to threaten the lives or disrupt the career paths of school children. School children must be protected from organizations that have the potential to put pressure on them and guilt trip them into signing away the rest of their young adult life. If their choices are to be respected, they must be left to develop their critical faculties and then permitted to use information available to the general public to make a decision.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5cbd02be18980098dc143e37268deca6",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace To only ask state-funded schools to accept military recruiters ensures that those entering the military out of school are disproportionally from state-schools rather than privately-funded schools, and therefore more likely to be middle and lower-class. Furthermore, there should be no quid pro quo regarding the funding of schools, conditions for further funding should be related to the success of students and the quality of teaching, not whether the school has furthered the state's desire to see its military substantiated. Schools should in fact protect students, not expose them annually to military recruiters who can incrementally pressurize them into a military career.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74ce6d53dbbbdf7d31d4eaaface97b31",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The need for recruits, however genuine, does not necessitate recruitment within schools. There will of course be certain students who would be attracted voluntarily to a role in the armed services, however these students can be reached through means other than their schools. Furthermore, if the motivation of recruits is paramount, then recruits can do no more to prove their motivation than actively and independently seek out a role in the armed services, rather than having it forced upon them through visits to their schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd0ecde21a6b9d3c9c7fa85d1d4cff99",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Young people are not aware and are, in many cases, deliberately misled as to the risks of military service. School children, conditioned by modern television, film and video games as to the heroism of military service, do not often ponder the dangers inherent in conflict. Modern video games, in which war deaths are the norm and immediate 're-spawning' dulls all sensitivity to death, do not serve to educate the youth about the risks but downplay them to the point of banality. Studies indicate that military recruiters, whilst not actively seeking to downplay risks or obscure the truth, are reluctant to volunteer information that would dissuade potential recruits 1. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ba6e7499d7fe86b9a7184ea7cfa1a3b",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace However it is dressed up, all the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students. The various educational materials (not always clearly marked as coming from the military) and courses on offer are all intended to interest students in a military career. Such methods are dishonest and should not be allowed in schools; Paul McGarr, a teacher in East London, stated that 'only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school'1. If students are genuinely interested in joining the military, they can go along to a recruitment centre outside school, potentially with their parents, and ask the necessary questions there. 1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47a41944c9fab07d2605aa348a9945e5",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace School children are not targeted for military service; the intention is to raise awareness about the work that the military do. A Ministry of Defence spokesman in the UK stated that they 'visit about 1,000 schools a year only at the invitation of the school – with the aim of raising the general awareness of their armed forces in society, not to recruit’. Furthermore, children interested in a military career are not instantly signed up, they are granted the time until they turn 18 to decide. In addition, before official enlistment, all potential recruits are sent away on a six-week camp to find out what a career in the army will be like1\n\n1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7311917.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91c3c1d1c6b3040bb0ba6306d01319ab",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruitment in schools is not illegal in the United States for they have not signed the relevant documents. The USA has not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child referred to opposite, although it has signed the UN's Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (United Nations General Assembly , 2000). However, the US military does not recruit under-18s anyway, so it is keeping to it's agreement. In any case, neither of these agreements stops recruiters visiting schools in order to make students aware of military career options once they turn 18.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d646965c7a0f1f382bce7a2be272c04a",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military presentations in schools are not designed to be propaganda for their institutions, or the state as a whole, but educate the school children as to the undeniably important role that they play. State survival invariably is dependent upon the existence of a strong, well-trained armed force filled with motivated volunteers. Furthermore, demonstrations of modern technology and smart uniforms do not paint an unfair or inaccurate image of contemporary warfare. Such examples in fact illustrate the honesty of militaries in their portrayal to school children of modern combat. They act as not merely an educational tool, but a life lesson, demonstrating that the world of their video games is, in conflict zones at least, very much real.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cce8390ac2d854891a870673a8d7ca2",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Recruiters do not minimise the risks of a military career, rather the armed forces have a good story to tell and they don't prevent themselves from saying so. Furthermore, it is policy for recruitment staff to 'explain the recruits' rights and responsibilities and the nature of the commitment to the Armed Forces'1. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e8e29112032fe5224958322d571343e",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace All high schools accepting state funding should accept military recruiters once a year\n\nThe relationship between the state and the schools that it establishes and funds goes both ways; if schools accept state funding, the state is entitled to use schools as a platform for the military to appeal to future recruits. All state-funded schools, irrespective of location and student demographics but only high schools, would be expected to accept military recruiters once a year to speak to the entire student body. The event would be a condition of further funding for the school, however there would be no limits placed on a minimum number of students that needed to enlist as a result.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99caeaf001dd3cc23f31b46c7a8d2ca6",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The military is an all-volunteer force and needs a percentage of school-age recruits each year\n\nOur military is an all-volunteer force and must recruit openly to keep up its numbers. The army, navy and air force need well-educated and motivated recruits; as the pool of potential recruits shrinks, efforts to attract young people must be permitted to 'intensify and diversify' 1 The alternative is a return to the conscription and national service that offers those recruits little choice. Military recruitment in schools permits the recruitment of only those with an interest in the armed forces, allowing those who wish to pursue other endeavours that opportunity. As such, visits to schools are not about forcing militaristic propaganda on children, but about making sure that 16-18 year olds know about the military as a potential career choice. After all, college representatives and local employers are allowed to make presentations to students, so it would be unfair to keep just the military out. If you accept that we need armed forces, then you must allow them to recruit openly. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f3269250a217b285cbb37ebfa60b8af",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The purpose of the military entering schools is not solely recruitment but awareness\n\nMilitaries provide a public service that too often goes unnoticed and underappreciated; school visits raise the level of understanding for the important job they do. In the UK the army publicly states that it does not directly recruit in schools but does visit many each year \"with the aim of raising the general awareness of the armed forces in society\"1They always visit by invitation of the Head teacher. Compared to the USA fewer young people have local or family connections with the military, so it is important for them to learn about the role the armed forces play in our country. And in both the UK and the USA the military offers other services to schools, from educational materials to leadership courses and team-building exercises. Sgt. Maj. Jerome DeJean, of the U.S. Army's 2nd Recruiting Brigade, describes their role as 'a partner in education\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bf16f51153b617bf679e1cfe03ae6a3",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Young people are aware of the risks of military service and therefore would not be easily misled by military personnel\n\nYoung people are not stupid – they know that there are risks involved in joining the military. In fact the media usually focuses on the bad news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring the good work of our military there. A career in the military also offers young people a lot of benefits, and it is only right that they should get to hear about those as well. As Donald Rumsfeld noted, ‘for some of our (US) students, this may be the best opportunity they have to get a college education’1. In addition, no one is signed up on the spot in the classroom; they always get the chance to think about it over a few months or more, and to discuss the decision carefully with parents and peers. As such, military recruitment in schools should be seen as no less unethical than the visits to schools of policemen, for whom there is similar risk but little public conjecture.\n\n1Vlahos, K. B. (2005, June 23). Heavy military recruitment at high schools irks some parents. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac993909104363a6c33e6672838fd01e",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruiters downplay the risks of a military career, tempting schoolchildren into a career they would not have chosen with honest information.\n\nRecruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military. They play up the excitement and chances to travel, as well as the pay and benefits such as college fees and training in special skills. They don't talk about the dangers of military life, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the thousands of young soldiers who have lost limbs or been emasculated in recent years. And they don't mention the impact of war on soldiers' mental health, or the lack of support when they leave the military. If we must have the military in our schools, then they should be made to give a much more realistic view of military life. Evidence suggests that 'whilst staff are generally willing to answer questions honestly, information that might dissuade potential recruits from enlisting is not routinely volunteered'1. If we are to accept the military in schools, they must similarly accept the moral necessity of presenting the risks of the career in a fair and truthful manner. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b527ce219a29ed37024ea446be988f17",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruitment in schools is illegal\n\nRecruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A set of rules that the USA signed up to in 2002 forbids the recruitment of children under the age of 181. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union has found that US military recruiters target children as young as 11, visiting their classrooms and making unfair promises to them2. Though the military would argue that its school visits do not constitute recruitment, if recruitment of those under 18 is wrong, then advertising to those under 18 should similarly be considered wrong. In order to live up to its pledge in 2002, the USA should stop trying to recruit in schools. 1 United Nations General Assembly . (2000, May 25). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: 2 American Civil Liberties Union. (2008, May 13). Military recruitment practices violate international standards, says ACLU. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09b87cd57c288c06577386ee926b0def",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace School children are too young to target for military service\n\nSchool children should be protected from targeted appeals for jobs they are unprepared for, both physically and emotionally. The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist. This means that they are very keen to get into schools to sign up young people. But it is not right to let them get at students who are too young to vote, or even drive. 16 and 17 year olds are not grown-up enough to make life and death decisions, like joining the army. They may not be able to see through exciting presentations or resist a persuasive and experienced recruitment officer. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, military recruiters collect data on 30 million students. The act 'grants the Pentagon access to directories of all public high schools to facilitate contact for military service recruitment'1. A huge database contains their personal details, including social security numbers, email addresses and academic records. The purpose of this is to allow recruiters to pester young people with messages, phone calls and home visits. Schools should be safe places to grow and learn, not somewhere to sign your life away before it has even properly begun. Upon enlisting, recruits enter a contract that legally binds them to the Armed Forces for up to six years2; school children should not be exposed to pressure to sign their young adolescence away. 1 Berg, M. (2005, February 23). Military recruiters have unrivaled access to schools. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Common Dreams: 2 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3db8bb9182ba021570169dab77afd5c8",
"text": " education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruitment in schools is less education than propaganda\n\nAllowing members of the military into schools is a form of propaganda. They promote the military and make war seem glamorous. Soldiers in smart uniforms come into classes with specially-made videos and powerful weapons, making violence and state-organised murder seem cool. A recent report into the practice stated 'key messages are routinely tailored to children's interests: military roles are promoted as glamorous…(and) warfare is portrayed as game-like and enjoyable.’1 This encourages young people to support aggressive action abroad. It also promotes an unthinking loyalty to the state, whether its actions are right or wrong. By allowing the military in, schools are signalling to their students that these things are OK.\n\n1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice: http://www.informedchoice.org.uk/informedchoice/index.php\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2f871bfe554f8096c89c310d192fc979
|
The military operations were proportionate to the threat:
Operation Cast Lead was justified as it was proportionate to Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel. It should be remembered that 250,000 Israelis living in the southern part of the country had lived under years of terrorism before Operation Cast Lead was launched, often in bomb shelters, and the economy has suffered. The world's media may only have paid attention when Israel responded to Hamas' barrage, but this does not mean that Israel was not already under severe attack by this point.(1) Moreover, the Israeli strikes were rightly measured to disable Hamas rocket attacks.(11)
Terror groups fire indiscriminately at innocent Israelis and then complain of excessive or disproportionate force when Israel fires back. But according to internationally accepted laws of war, Israel is permitted to respond with the force necessary to end the conflict.(2)
Israel was legitimate in using full force to win its war on Hamas; Israel was under no obligation to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel had every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response. Hamas has repeatedly stated that its objective is to destroy Israel. Such an existential threat goes beyond simply Hamas' rocket attacks, as it portends much more destructive attacks in the future. This justifies defensive attacks from Israel that go beyond responding merely to the Hamas rockets, and would even justify Israeli efforts to fully demobilize or destroy Hamas.(12) In spite of this, Israel was actually far more restrained and proportionate than it was obligated to be. Israeli precision strikes sought to minimize civilian deaths, as Benjamin Netanyahu argued: "In launching precision strikes against Hamas rocket launchers, headquarters, weapons depots, smuggling tunnels and training camps, Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties."(13) Unlike Hamas, Israeli strikes targeted military sites, not civilians. As Gary Grant argued: "Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification."(2)
Israel may have been justified in acting disproportionately, but instead chose to respond in a proportionate and limited manner which minimized civilian deaths in Gaza, and thus the Israeli military operations were certainly justified.
|
[
{
"docid": "bca52a11bb86b1825d0cabce37be1998",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Under the same logic, over 1 million residents of Gaza have been under occupation since 1967, facing limited rights of movement, regular air raids, military checkpoints, random searches and seizures, random arrests, the destruction of sanitation facilities, homes, schools, roads, shops, markets, and health facilities, and therefore Hamas has the right act in its own self-defense by whatever means it sees fit. If Palestinians do not have an army to call to its defense, how can the entire population be punished for the actions of non-state military groups?\n\nIsrael’s right to take positive steps of some kind in the interests of its own safety does not mean it has the right to do anything it wishes in order to protect itself. It is also evident that Israel violated international law and committed war crimes, was was reported in the Goldstone Report.\n\nBetween the time when the shelling from Gaza started in 2001 and Operation Cast Lead, 20 Israeli civilians were killed by rockets or mortars, according to estimates by Israeli human rights groups. That doesn’t justify an all-out ground invasion that killed more than 1,400 people.(10) As Javier Solana, chief of foreign policy for the European Union, said in late December 2008, \"the current Israeli strikes are inflicting an unacceptable toll on Palestinian civilians.\"(14)\n\nIt is a widely accepted principle of international law that actions taken pursuant to a state’s right to defend itself must be proportionate to the danger that the state faces. While the 20 deaths that resulted from the actions of Hamas and its associates were tragic, the nature of these attacks did not justify a full scale military invasion of the Gaza strip, or the mass destruction of infrastructure essential to life in the strip.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f0c1b4d95813ec8ddedab23516b15083",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The long-term security of Israel rests in a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempting to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.\n\nA crucial step towards peace is to bring Hamas to the bargaining table. Israel's levelling of Gaza emboldened Hamas' message of resistance, and allowed Gazans to continue to rely on Hamas. As long as Israel continues to justify Arab and Palestinian anger through its disproportionate response, it is unlikely that enough trust can be established to reach a peace deal.\n\nEven Israelis recognize that this assualt has created an even larger barrier to peace. “This policy [Operation Cast Lead] is not strengthening Israel,” noted Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues. “The trauma that 1.5 million people have been undergoing in Gaza is going to have long-term effects for our ability to live together.\"(10)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "558a20c5c30115c36ad58c3b959e9ead",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel similarly violated the ceasefire prior to 2008, and had unlawfully kidnapped and imprisoned hundreds of Palestinians. Furthermore, Israel's attack on Gaza was not an act of last resort. Israel could and should have tried to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on the following principle: an end to the Israeli siege on Gaza in exchange for an end to Hamas-led rocket attacks on Israel. This is the deal Hamas offered Israel before Operation Cast Lead was launched. Israel should have accepted Hamas’s offer and assessed whether Hamas’s intention to be bound by its terms was genuine before launching a military attack.(6) If an action isn't truly an act of last resort, it cannot be legitimately termed 'self-defense', and so is not justified. Hamas were prepared to enter into negotiations with Israel and it was prepared to discuss the more intricate details of the deal it had proposed. Its attempts to avoid conflict were committed and consistent enough to suggest that Gaza’s leaders were not engaged in diplomatic posturing or sabre rattling. Israel targeted more than just military targets, including UN warehouses holding medical and food supplies, UN schools, and hospitals. Its imprecise tactics and refusal to allow access of humanitarian workers show that it was not merely self-defense.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17b326077796d7ba8834d0d551cb87da",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 None of these arguments change that fact that 250,000 Israelis in southern Israel lived under constant fear of Hamas rocket attacks, which Hamas escalated after a ceasefire which it refused to extend. It is notable that Syria, an implacable enemy of Israel, actually played a significant role in triggering he conflict. The Damascus office of Hamas, which operates under the aegis of the regime of Bashar al Assad, vetoed the efforts of Hamas leaders in Gaza to extend the cease-fire and insisted on escalating rocket attacks.(4) The role of foreign powers in proving the conflict through Hamas has been recognized outside of Israel was well: Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, assailed Israel's air strikes but also held Hamas responsible. The Egyptian government understood that Hamas, like Hezbollah, is increasingly allied with Iran and its goals for fomenting regional instability.(1) Israel could not possibly have been expected to thus not take military action to defend itself when coming under rocket fire from a terrorist government dedicated to Israel's destruction and under the direction of foreign states which are mortal enemies of Israel's existence. There was simply no other way to stop the rocket attacks. Moreover, Israel's blockade of Gaza was not a justified reason for Hamas' rocket attacks. Israeli control of Gaza’s borders was a response to Hamas’ exploitation of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza to turn it into an armed, Islamic state dedicated to the destruction of Israel above all else, even its own economy. Hamas was not provoked. Quite the contrary. Hamas’ arms smuggling was the provocation. Then, on top of this provocation, Hamas fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel. The idea that Hamas was provoked leapfrogs the facts.(27)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b0d3920ca3d58befd0a5834cf67db19",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 It is indisputable that Hamas has launched violent attacks against civilian targets. Israel, on the other hand, conducts its operations exercising all due care to limit civilian casualties. Hamas terrorists, however, set up their headquarters and store weapons in private homes, schools, colleges and mosques. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have blamed Hamas for provoking the Israeli attack on Hamas targets embedded in civilian areas.(28) Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces.(1)\n\nIsrael actually put its own troops in harm’s way to minimize civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead.(13) This shows Israel's commitment to preventing civilian casualties and thus the justification of Operation Cast Lead. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian casualties can be explained by the fact that Israel has early warning systems and hospitals. Israel invests significantly more in stable buildings that do not crumble when subjected a blast, systems that can detect incoming rocket fire, and an extensive and modern network of hospitals and emergency response teams. This, and the fact that Israel does not attempt to shield its military installations behind civilian homes and businesses, helps lower the number of civilian casualties as compared to in Gaza.(2)\n\nThe claim that Israel violated the principle of proportionality, by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets, is absurd. There is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.(29) Moreover, if Israel were to be 'proportional' and respond to the Hamas attacks in the same way, what would that mean? Would this require that it launch rocket attacks back against Gazan civilians? Obviously not (this would result in even more civilian deaths), and this is where the logic of proportionality against terrorist attacks makes little sense.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6c5f9545797d5a0186e1c3c246f738",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The most important thing for regional peace in the long run is not the belief among Israelis that there is a 'military solution' to the conflict, but rather the belief of Hamas and its backers in Syria and Iran that Israel can be 'solved' militarily. It is this belief that causes them to constantly return to using force against Israel, as they did with the rocket attacks. Therefore to establish peace in the long run, Israeli deterrent and demonstration that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity are the most important factors, and these are exactly what Operation Cast Lead re-established. Moreover, Hamas may promotes itself as the legitimate power in Gaza, but in reality, Hamas is at its core a terrorist organization that refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Hamas came to power in Gaza through a violent coup against the Palestinian Authority government. Since Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel, the Israeli government has no choice but to seek Hamas' replacement.(2)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "363eb1eea29c66f6965a2552d4f882a9",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The military operations were necessary for long term peace:\n\nAs Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Haleviargue explain, “the Israeli public will not make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel had already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.”(1) Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.(4)\n\nMeanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.(1) Therefore damaging Hamas, via Operation Cast Lead, actually aided the peace process in the long run, and was necessary in order to make an eventual two-state peace solution possible. The Israeli attacks may also eventually help force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire. Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hezbollah, during Operation Cast Lead it was made clear that the objective was not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms.(8) This was necessary as prior to Operation Cast Lead Hamas showed no interest in peace, opting instead to pursue its political objectives through the use of terrorism. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in January 2006, it failed to control the rocket fire from the variety of miltary brigades, including its own al-Qassam brigade, into Israel and failed to establish internal stability. The widespread violence between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in June 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza and ousted leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, made Israel more wary of the security threat an unstable Gaza could pose.(9)\n\nIn Israel's view, Hamas' behavior and its reliance on terror tactics will never change if it thinks it can attack with impunity, and so the Israeli military operations were necessary and justified in the name of restoring Israel's deterrent and weakening Hamas, both of which make long term peace more likely.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ada1f27bce2250e4eaa0951b8ad38f7c",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The military operations were legitimate as Israeli self-defense:\n\nThe military operations were a legitimate use of the Israeli state’s right to defend itself and its citizens: To quote then-President-elect Barack Obama - \"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.\"(1)\n\nPrior to Israel's 2008-2009 military operations, Hamas had consistently violated the terms of the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. It launched a total 6,300 rockets during an agreed hiatus in the confrontation, killing 10 and wounding more than 780. Hamas refused to extend the truce past 19 December 2008 and subsequently resumed attacks, firing nearly 300 more missiles, rockets and mortars.(1) Hamas was the first to actually escalate the conflict after the ceasefire expired, with a systematic increase in rocket attacks to a magnitude of hundreds of rockets fired daily in late December.(2) The 250,000 Israelis who lived in the southern part of the country were under constant threat, often in bomb shelters, and the economy suffered as a result.(1) Israel went to great lengths to avoid its military escalation. Just a few days before Israel's military operations, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an appeal on the Arab television station Al-Arabiya asking Gaza residents to stop the firing of rockets and mortar shells so that a military response could be avoided.(3) This appeal was apparently ignored by Hamas and the other militant groups in Gaza, and so Israel proceeded to respond militarily to remove the capacity of Gaza to launch rocket and mortar attacks – Israel was left with no other way to ensure that the inhabitants of the country’s southern regions would not have to live in fear of rocket fire.\n\nGaza was also a test case, intended to prove that Israel remained a legitimate and authoritative actor in the region. Much more was at stake than merely the military outcome of Israel's operation. The issue, rather, was Israel's ability to restore its deterrence power and uphold the principle that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity.(4) Israel's military operations were a good tool to fulfill this need for self-defense and did so effectively. The Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces, both to its leadership and to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army.(1) Doing this damage was necessary as Israel could never be safe with a strong terrorist regime in control of Gaza. As David Harris, Executive Director for the American Jewish Committee, argued: \"Israel could not tolerate a terrorist regime on its border that was launching repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli towns and villages.\"(5) Therefore there can be no debate that Israel had the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so.\n\nWhile it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fulfill them, Israel's right to make that judgment itself must be respected. Therefore Israel's military operations against Gaza were justified as legitimate self defense against Hamas and militant aggression which was putting the lives of Israeli citizens in jeopardy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd9e2257db4b4af5e1f31ea8012efcd1",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel's military operations harmed the chances of peace in the long term:\n\nThe long-term security of Israel rests with a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempts to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.(10)\n\nOperation Cast Lead ignored history, which teaches that there is no military solution to peace with the Palestinians. As a Daily Star Editorial argued, \"For the Israelis, once they have exercised this latest spasm of gratuitous bloodletting, there will be yet another opportunity to accept the oft-proved impossibility of a military solution. The Palestinian people will not be battered into submission, no amount of air strikes will make the core issues in the moribund peace process go away, and all of the same difficult decisions will still be waiting when the dust settles.\"(18) Thus Operation Cast Lead actually undermined future peace by once more making Israelis believe they can fight their way to a solution, which they cannot. As Nicholas Kristoff argues, \"What we’re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other.\"(10)\n\nIsrael cannot stop rocket attacks by military action alone; eventually a political deal will be needed.(19) Operation Cast Lead emboldened the anti-negotiation side of Israeli politics, however, which focus on their claim that Israel should not negotiate with Hamas. However, Hamas was democratically elected, and so Israel must make peace with them. If Hamas was an authoritarian regime, Israel could possible attempt to get rid of it and make peace with the Palestinians in Gaza separately. But, because Hamas was democratically elected, any efforts by Israel to destroy them will be seen in Gaza as an effort to destroy the Palestinians and their democratic will. This would not enable any long-term peace with the Palestinians. Therefore, a long-term peace depends on working with Hamas, rather than attempting to destroy them.(20) Instead, Israel pursued Operation Cast Lead, which included an Israeli ground assault in Gaza, the excessive force of which is likely to create more terrorists in the long run.(10) The fact that Hamas was always going to survive Israel's assault meant that Operation Cast Lead was always going to help to consolidate the legitimacy of the Hamas movement, and to ensure that all the efforts of Israel to eliminate that fundamental pillar of resistance will produce the reverse result.(22)\n\nIsrael's offensive gave Iran and its allies a way to pressure Egypt, Jordan and other Arab 'moderates'. Like the Lebanon war of 2006, Israel's battle with Hamas in Gaza produced a schism among Muslim states. Iran and its Lebanon based ally Hezbollah have joined Hamas's Damascus-based leadership in calling for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel -- and also against the governments of Egypt and Jordan, which are accused of silently supporting Israel's air attacks.(23) Israel’s ruthless attack on Gaza and the massive civilian casualties it has inflicted has severely damaged the nation's moral stature in the world. This moral deficit will cause problems for Israel in its future engagements in the world. Therefore long term peace in the region was harmed by Operation Cast Lead, and so it was not justified.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2fe1d11c351eb274035e971dc6c4bd",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel's military operations were aggression, not self defense:\n\nIsrael has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that they amounted to an act of 'self-defense' as recognized by Article 51, United Nations Charter. This contention should be rejected: the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they were, did not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defense. Under international law, self-defense is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.\n\nOperation Cast Lead caused the deaths of over 1,400 Palestinians, over 300 of whom were children, injured 4,500 more and resulted in the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN facilities and government buildings. If, as Israel has stated, Cast Lead was carried out in accordance with the terms of international law, and the safeguards incorporated into the contemporary law of war, then Israeli forces had a duty to protect civilian infrastructure under the fourth Geneva Convention. The death and destruction that Israeli forces wrought throughout the Gaza Strip was not commensurate with the losses caused by Hamas rocket fire, no matter how horrific those attacks may have been.\n\nIsrael’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defense, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas.(15) Israel's attack on Gaza was also not an act of last resort. Israel could and should have tried to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on the principle that Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel in return for Israel lifting its siege on Gaza. This is the deal Hamas offered Israel before it started Operation Cast Lead, and Israel should have taken it then and seen how went before resorting to military force.(6)\n\nIsrael arguably provoked the entire conflict by targeting Palestinian civilians with its blockade on Gaza. According to Hebrew University international law expert Yuval Shani, \"It is my opinion that in this situation, and given the question marks regarding Israel's status in Gaza and Gaza's long-standing dependency on Israel, cutting off its water and electricity supplies would be equivalent to a direct attack on a civilian target, especially given that the motive for doing so is one of collective punishment, which is, in itself, a problematic motive.\"(26) Hamas had offered to renew the ceasefire if Israel reopened Gaza's border crossings. The strip had been sealed by Israel in an economic siege aimed at toppling Hamas. The blockade had brought the territory near economic collapse.(21) Therefore this blockade must be seen as the true cause of the conflict, and thus Operation Cast Lead was not a legitimate act of self-defense.\n\nThe lack of efficacy of Operation Cast Lead also undermines its legitimacy as 'self-defense': while Hamas's offensive capacities were blunted for a while, the likelihood, as with Hezbollah after Lebanon in 2006, is that it will quickly rebuild its military strength. Indeed, the assassinations of its leaders by Israel over the years- and the raids on its weapons workshops- did little to limit its rise to power.(16) Israel's overall strategy, moreover, is not one of 'self-defense' against Hamas, but rather to make ordinary Palestinians suffer in hopes of creating ill will toward their Hamas government. This is why, beginning in 2007, Israel cut back fuel shipments for Gaza’s utilities, and why, in the aftermath of the bombings, 800,000 Gaza residents were deprived running water. As Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues, argued: “The Israeli policy on Gaza has been marketed as a policy against Hamas, but in reality it’s a policy against a million-and-a-half people in Gaza.”(10) Rashid Khalidi added to this argument: \"This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about 'restoring Israel’s deterrence,' as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: 'The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.'\"(17)\n\nIsraeli internal politics may also have played a role in determining the size and scope of Cast Lead. Israel was preparing for general elections on 10 February 2009. The prospect of a return to power by the hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, promising tough action against Hamas, hardened the positions of Israel's more moderate political leaders, and may have caused them to launch such an operation to 'look tough', rather than judging its proportionality on its own merits.(21)Therefore Operation Cast Lead should be regarded not as legitimate self-defense, but rather as an act of aggression against the Palestinian people of Gaza, and consequently w\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4553028552e20ac721bc5058b3f4b013",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel's military operations were disproportionate and harmed too many civilians:\n\nThe killing of over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 4,500 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire. For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.(15) The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious, but the numbers speak for themselves: 800 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed during Operation Cast Lead. In contrast, around a dozen Israelis were killed, many of them soldiers.(17) Precision strikes which avoided civilian deaths were never going to be possible in the crowded Gaza Strip. As Akiva Eldar argued: \"The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations. The difficult images from the Strip will soon replace those of the damage inflicted by Qassam rockets in the western Negev. The scale of losses, which works in 'favor' of the Palestinians, will return Israel to the role of Goliath.\"(24)\n\nIt is notable that Israel is more culpable for the civilian deaths it causes than Hamas is with its rockets, as Israel had options (such as ending the blockade and negotiating with Hamas) which could have caused fewer civilian deaths, whereas Hamas did not. Rather Hamas responds as the disproportionately weaker party; the Palestinians were compelled to use the crude means at their disposal to free their lands from Israeli occupation, even if this meant being unable to target them well and some civilian deaths resulting.(25) Israel's Operation Cast Lead was less legitimate as it was not Israel's only option, and so cannot be regarded as proportionate. Furthermore, Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza was a humanitarian crime. The use of white phosphorous by Israel to shield its military movements in Gaza was a humanitarian crime, as the chemical causes serious health problems to civilians that inhale it. And, by all accounts, the chemical was inhaled by many Gazan civilians.(25)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
78140d30a3735ee76706097ab562d600
|
Israel's military operations were aggression, not self defense:
Israel has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that they amounted to an act of 'self-defense' as recognized by Article 51, United Nations Charter. This contention should be rejected: the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they were, did not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defense. Under international law, self-defense is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.
Operation Cast Lead caused the deaths of over 1,400 Palestinians, over 300 of whom were children, injured 4,500 more and resulted in the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN facilities and government buildings. If, as Israel has stated, Cast Lead was carried out in accordance with the terms of international law, and the safeguards incorporated into the contemporary law of war, then Israeli forces had a duty to protect civilian infrastructure under the fourth Geneva Convention. The death and destruction that Israeli forces wrought throughout the Gaza Strip was not commensurate with the losses caused by Hamas rocket fire, no matter how horrific those attacks may have been.
Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defense, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas.(15) Israel's attack on Gaza was also not an act of last resort. Israel could and should have tried to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on the principle that Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel in return for Israel lifting its siege on Gaza. This is the deal Hamas offered Israel before it started Operation Cast Lead, and Israel should have taken it then and seen how went before resorting to military force.(6)
Israel arguably provoked the entire conflict by targeting Palestinian civilians with its blockade on Gaza. According to Hebrew University international law expert Yuval Shani, "It is my opinion that in this situation, and given the question marks regarding Israel's status in Gaza and Gaza's long-standing dependency on Israel, cutting off its water and electricity supplies would be equivalent to a direct attack on a civilian target, especially given that the motive for doing so is one of collective punishment, which is, in itself, a problematic motive."(26) Hamas had offered to renew the ceasefire if Israel reopened Gaza's border crossings. The strip had been sealed by Israel in an economic siege aimed at toppling Hamas. The blockade had brought the territory near economic collapse.(21) Therefore this blockade must be seen as the true cause of the conflict, and thus Operation Cast Lead was not a legitimate act of self-defense.
The lack of efficacy of Operation Cast Lead also undermines its legitimacy as 'self-defense': while Hamas's offensive capacities were blunted for a while, the likelihood, as with Hezbollah after Lebanon in 2006, is that it will quickly rebuild its military strength. Indeed, the assassinations of its leaders by Israel over the years- and the raids on its weapons workshops- did little to limit its rise to power.(16) Israel's overall strategy, moreover, is not one of 'self-defense' against Hamas, but rather to make ordinary Palestinians suffer in hopes of creating ill will toward their Hamas government. This is why, beginning in 2007, Israel cut back fuel shipments for Gaza’s utilities, and why, in the aftermath of the bombings, 800,000 Gaza residents were deprived running water. As Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues, argued: “The Israeli policy on Gaza has been marketed as a policy against Hamas, but in reality it’s a policy against a million-and-a-half people in Gaza.”(10) Rashid Khalidi added to this argument: "This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about 'restoring Israel’s deterrence,' as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: 'The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.'"(17)
Israeli internal politics may also have played a role in determining the size and scope of Cast Lead. Israel was preparing for general elections on 10 February 2009. The prospect of a return to power by the hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, promising tough action against Hamas, hardened the positions of Israel's more moderate political leaders, and may have caused them to launch such an operation to 'look tough', rather than judging its proportionality on its own merits.(21)Therefore Operation Cast Lead should be regarded not as legitimate self-defense, but rather as an act of aggression against the Palestinian people of Gaza, and consequently w
|
[
{
"docid": "17b326077796d7ba8834d0d551cb87da",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 None of these arguments change that fact that 250,000 Israelis in southern Israel lived under constant fear of Hamas rocket attacks, which Hamas escalated after a ceasefire which it refused to extend. It is notable that Syria, an implacable enemy of Israel, actually played a significant role in triggering he conflict. The Damascus office of Hamas, which operates under the aegis of the regime of Bashar al Assad, vetoed the efforts of Hamas leaders in Gaza to extend the cease-fire and insisted on escalating rocket attacks.(4) The role of foreign powers in proving the conflict through Hamas has been recognized outside of Israel was well: Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, assailed Israel's air strikes but also held Hamas responsible. The Egyptian government understood that Hamas, like Hezbollah, is increasingly allied with Iran and its goals for fomenting regional instability.(1) Israel could not possibly have been expected to thus not take military action to defend itself when coming under rocket fire from a terrorist government dedicated to Israel's destruction and under the direction of foreign states which are mortal enemies of Israel's existence. There was simply no other way to stop the rocket attacks. Moreover, Israel's blockade of Gaza was not a justified reason for Hamas' rocket attacks. Israeli control of Gaza’s borders was a response to Hamas’ exploitation of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza to turn it into an armed, Islamic state dedicated to the destruction of Israel above all else, even its own economy. Hamas was not provoked. Quite the contrary. Hamas’ arms smuggling was the provocation. Then, on top of this provocation, Hamas fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel. The idea that Hamas was provoked leapfrogs the facts.(27)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0b0d3920ca3d58befd0a5834cf67db19",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 It is indisputable that Hamas has launched violent attacks against civilian targets. Israel, on the other hand, conducts its operations exercising all due care to limit civilian casualties. Hamas terrorists, however, set up their headquarters and store weapons in private homes, schools, colleges and mosques. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have blamed Hamas for provoking the Israeli attack on Hamas targets embedded in civilian areas.(28) Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces.(1)\n\nIsrael actually put its own troops in harm’s way to minimize civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead.(13) This shows Israel's commitment to preventing civilian casualties and thus the justification of Operation Cast Lead. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian casualties can be explained by the fact that Israel has early warning systems and hospitals. Israel invests significantly more in stable buildings that do not crumble when subjected a blast, systems that can detect incoming rocket fire, and an extensive and modern network of hospitals and emergency response teams. This, and the fact that Israel does not attempt to shield its military installations behind civilian homes and businesses, helps lower the number of civilian casualties as compared to in Gaza.(2)\n\nThe claim that Israel violated the principle of proportionality, by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets, is absurd. There is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.(29) Moreover, if Israel were to be 'proportional' and respond to the Hamas attacks in the same way, what would that mean? Would this require that it launch rocket attacks back against Gazan civilians? Obviously not (this would result in even more civilian deaths), and this is where the logic of proportionality against terrorist attacks makes little sense.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6c5f9545797d5a0186e1c3c246f738",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The most important thing for regional peace in the long run is not the belief among Israelis that there is a 'military solution' to the conflict, but rather the belief of Hamas and its backers in Syria and Iran that Israel can be 'solved' militarily. It is this belief that causes them to constantly return to using force against Israel, as they did with the rocket attacks. Therefore to establish peace in the long run, Israeli deterrent and demonstration that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity are the most important factors, and these are exactly what Operation Cast Lead re-established. Moreover, Hamas may promotes itself as the legitimate power in Gaza, but in reality, Hamas is at its core a terrorist organization that refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Hamas came to power in Gaza through a violent coup against the Palestinian Authority government. Since Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel, the Israeli government has no choice but to seek Hamas' replacement.(2)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0c1b4d95813ec8ddedab23516b15083",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The long-term security of Israel rests in a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempting to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.\n\nA crucial step towards peace is to bring Hamas to the bargaining table. Israel's levelling of Gaza emboldened Hamas' message of resistance, and allowed Gazans to continue to rely on Hamas. As long as Israel continues to justify Arab and Palestinian anger through its disproportionate response, it is unlikely that enough trust can be established to reach a peace deal.\n\nEven Israelis recognize that this assualt has created an even larger barrier to peace. “This policy [Operation Cast Lead] is not strengthening Israel,” noted Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues. “The trauma that 1.5 million people have been undergoing in Gaza is going to have long-term effects for our ability to live together.\"(10)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bca52a11bb86b1825d0cabce37be1998",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Under the same logic, over 1 million residents of Gaza have been under occupation since 1967, facing limited rights of movement, regular air raids, military checkpoints, random searches and seizures, random arrests, the destruction of sanitation facilities, homes, schools, roads, shops, markets, and health facilities, and therefore Hamas has the right act in its own self-defense by whatever means it sees fit. If Palestinians do not have an army to call to its defense, how can the entire population be punished for the actions of non-state military groups?\n\nIsrael’s right to take positive steps of some kind in the interests of its own safety does not mean it has the right to do anything it wishes in order to protect itself. It is also evident that Israel violated international law and committed war crimes, was was reported in the Goldstone Report.\n\nBetween the time when the shelling from Gaza started in 2001 and Operation Cast Lead, 20 Israeli civilians were killed by rockets or mortars, according to estimates by Israeli human rights groups. That doesn’t justify an all-out ground invasion that killed more than 1,400 people.(10) As Javier Solana, chief of foreign policy for the European Union, said in late December 2008, \"the current Israeli strikes are inflicting an unacceptable toll on Palestinian civilians.\"(14)\n\nIt is a widely accepted principle of international law that actions taken pursuant to a state’s right to defend itself must be proportionate to the danger that the state faces. While the 20 deaths that resulted from the actions of Hamas and its associates were tragic, the nature of these attacks did not justify a full scale military invasion of the Gaza strip, or the mass destruction of infrastructure essential to life in the strip.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "558a20c5c30115c36ad58c3b959e9ead",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel similarly violated the ceasefire prior to 2008, and had unlawfully kidnapped and imprisoned hundreds of Palestinians. Furthermore, Israel's attack on Gaza was not an act of last resort. Israel could and should have tried to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on the following principle: an end to the Israeli siege on Gaza in exchange for an end to Hamas-led rocket attacks on Israel. This is the deal Hamas offered Israel before Operation Cast Lead was launched. Israel should have accepted Hamas’s offer and assessed whether Hamas’s intention to be bound by its terms was genuine before launching a military attack.(6) If an action isn't truly an act of last resort, it cannot be legitimately termed 'self-defense', and so is not justified. Hamas were prepared to enter into negotiations with Israel and it was prepared to discuss the more intricate details of the deal it had proposed. Its attempts to avoid conflict were committed and consistent enough to suggest that Gaza’s leaders were not engaged in diplomatic posturing or sabre rattling. Israel targeted more than just military targets, including UN warehouses holding medical and food supplies, UN schools, and hospitals. Its imprecise tactics and refusal to allow access of humanitarian workers show that it was not merely self-defense.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd9e2257db4b4af5e1f31ea8012efcd1",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel's military operations harmed the chances of peace in the long term:\n\nThe long-term security of Israel rests with a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempts to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.(10)\n\nOperation Cast Lead ignored history, which teaches that there is no military solution to peace with the Palestinians. As a Daily Star Editorial argued, \"For the Israelis, once they have exercised this latest spasm of gratuitous bloodletting, there will be yet another opportunity to accept the oft-proved impossibility of a military solution. The Palestinian people will not be battered into submission, no amount of air strikes will make the core issues in the moribund peace process go away, and all of the same difficult decisions will still be waiting when the dust settles.\"(18) Thus Operation Cast Lead actually undermined future peace by once more making Israelis believe they can fight their way to a solution, which they cannot. As Nicholas Kristoff argues, \"What we’re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other.\"(10)\n\nIsrael cannot stop rocket attacks by military action alone; eventually a political deal will be needed.(19) Operation Cast Lead emboldened the anti-negotiation side of Israeli politics, however, which focus on their claim that Israel should not negotiate with Hamas. However, Hamas was democratically elected, and so Israel must make peace with them. If Hamas was an authoritarian regime, Israel could possible attempt to get rid of it and make peace with the Palestinians in Gaza separately. But, because Hamas was democratically elected, any efforts by Israel to destroy them will be seen in Gaza as an effort to destroy the Palestinians and their democratic will. This would not enable any long-term peace with the Palestinians. Therefore, a long-term peace depends on working with Hamas, rather than attempting to destroy them.(20) Instead, Israel pursued Operation Cast Lead, which included an Israeli ground assault in Gaza, the excessive force of which is likely to create more terrorists in the long run.(10) The fact that Hamas was always going to survive Israel's assault meant that Operation Cast Lead was always going to help to consolidate the legitimacy of the Hamas movement, and to ensure that all the efforts of Israel to eliminate that fundamental pillar of resistance will produce the reverse result.(22)\n\nIsrael's offensive gave Iran and its allies a way to pressure Egypt, Jordan and other Arab 'moderates'. Like the Lebanon war of 2006, Israel's battle with Hamas in Gaza produced a schism among Muslim states. Iran and its Lebanon based ally Hezbollah have joined Hamas's Damascus-based leadership in calling for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel -- and also against the governments of Egypt and Jordan, which are accused of silently supporting Israel's air attacks.(23) Israel’s ruthless attack on Gaza and the massive civilian casualties it has inflicted has severely damaged the nation's moral stature in the world. This moral deficit will cause problems for Israel in its future engagements in the world. Therefore long term peace in the region was harmed by Operation Cast Lead, and so it was not justified.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4553028552e20ac721bc5058b3f4b013",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 Israel's military operations were disproportionate and harmed too many civilians:\n\nThe killing of over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 4,500 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire. For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.(15) The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious, but the numbers speak for themselves: 800 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed during Operation Cast Lead. In contrast, around a dozen Israelis were killed, many of them soldiers.(17) Precision strikes which avoided civilian deaths were never going to be possible in the crowded Gaza Strip. As Akiva Eldar argued: \"The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations. The difficult images from the Strip will soon replace those of the damage inflicted by Qassam rockets in the western Negev. The scale of losses, which works in 'favor' of the Palestinians, will return Israel to the role of Goliath.\"(24)\n\nIt is notable that Israel is more culpable for the civilian deaths it causes than Hamas is with its rockets, as Israel had options (such as ending the blockade and negotiating with Hamas) which could have caused fewer civilian deaths, whereas Hamas did not. Rather Hamas responds as the disproportionately weaker party; the Palestinians were compelled to use the crude means at their disposal to free their lands from Israeli occupation, even if this meant being unable to target them well and some civilian deaths resulting.(25) Israel's Operation Cast Lead was less legitimate as it was not Israel's only option, and so cannot be regarded as proportionate. Furthermore, Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza was a humanitarian crime. The use of white phosphorous by Israel to shield its military movements in Gaza was a humanitarian crime, as the chemical causes serious health problems to civilians that inhale it. And, by all accounts, the chemical was inhaled by many Gazan civilians.(25)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "363eb1eea29c66f6965a2552d4f882a9",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The military operations were necessary for long term peace:\n\nAs Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Haleviargue explain, “the Israeli public will not make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel had already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.”(1) Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.(4)\n\nMeanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.(1) Therefore damaging Hamas, via Operation Cast Lead, actually aided the peace process in the long run, and was necessary in order to make an eventual two-state peace solution possible. The Israeli attacks may also eventually help force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire. Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hezbollah, during Operation Cast Lead it was made clear that the objective was not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms.(8) This was necessary as prior to Operation Cast Lead Hamas showed no interest in peace, opting instead to pursue its political objectives through the use of terrorism. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in January 2006, it failed to control the rocket fire from the variety of miltary brigades, including its own al-Qassam brigade, into Israel and failed to establish internal stability. The widespread violence between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in June 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza and ousted leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, made Israel more wary of the security threat an unstable Gaza could pose.(9)\n\nIn Israel's view, Hamas' behavior and its reliance on terror tactics will never change if it thinks it can attack with impunity, and so the Israeli military operations were necessary and justified in the name of restoring Israel's deterrent and weakening Hamas, both of which make long term peace more likely.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8380e74a542f37dc3273472fe88166d",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The military operations were proportionate to the threat:\n\nOperation Cast Lead was justified as it was proportionate to Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel. It should be remembered that 250,000 Israelis living in the southern part of the country had lived under years of terrorism before Operation Cast Lead was launched, often in bomb shelters, and the economy has suffered. The world's media may only have paid attention when Israel responded to Hamas' barrage, but this does not mean that Israel was not already under severe attack by this point.(1) Moreover, the Israeli strikes were rightly measured to disable Hamas rocket attacks.(11)\n\nTerror groups fire indiscriminately at innocent Israelis and then complain of excessive or disproportionate force when Israel fires back. But according to internationally accepted laws of war, Israel is permitted to respond with the force necessary to end the conflict.(2)\n\nIsrael was legitimate in using full force to win its war on Hamas; Israel was under no obligation to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel had every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response. Hamas has repeatedly stated that its objective is to destroy Israel. Such an existential threat goes beyond simply Hamas' rocket attacks, as it portends much more destructive attacks in the future. This justifies defensive attacks from Israel that go beyond responding merely to the Hamas rockets, and would even justify Israeli efforts to fully demobilize or destroy Hamas.(12) In spite of this, Israel was actually far more restrained and proportionate than it was obligated to be. Israeli precision strikes sought to minimize civilian deaths, as Benjamin Netanyahu argued: \"In launching precision strikes against Hamas rocket launchers, headquarters, weapons depots, smuggling tunnels and training camps, Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties.\"(13) Unlike Hamas, Israeli strikes targeted military sites, not civilians. As Gary Grant argued: \"Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification.\"(2)\n\nIsrael may have been justified in acting disproportionately, but instead chose to respond in a proportionate and limited manner which minimized civilian deaths in Gaza, and thus the Israeli military operations were certainly justified.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ada1f27bce2250e4eaa0951b8ad38f7c",
"text": "onal middle east politics terrorism warpeace house believes israels 2008 2009 The military operations were legitimate as Israeli self-defense:\n\nThe military operations were a legitimate use of the Israeli state’s right to defend itself and its citizens: To quote then-President-elect Barack Obama - \"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.\"(1)\n\nPrior to Israel's 2008-2009 military operations, Hamas had consistently violated the terms of the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. It launched a total 6,300 rockets during an agreed hiatus in the confrontation, killing 10 and wounding more than 780. Hamas refused to extend the truce past 19 December 2008 and subsequently resumed attacks, firing nearly 300 more missiles, rockets and mortars.(1) Hamas was the first to actually escalate the conflict after the ceasefire expired, with a systematic increase in rocket attacks to a magnitude of hundreds of rockets fired daily in late December.(2) The 250,000 Israelis who lived in the southern part of the country were under constant threat, often in bomb shelters, and the economy suffered as a result.(1) Israel went to great lengths to avoid its military escalation. Just a few days before Israel's military operations, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an appeal on the Arab television station Al-Arabiya asking Gaza residents to stop the firing of rockets and mortar shells so that a military response could be avoided.(3) This appeal was apparently ignored by Hamas and the other militant groups in Gaza, and so Israel proceeded to respond militarily to remove the capacity of Gaza to launch rocket and mortar attacks – Israel was left with no other way to ensure that the inhabitants of the country’s southern regions would not have to live in fear of rocket fire.\n\nGaza was also a test case, intended to prove that Israel remained a legitimate and authoritative actor in the region. Much more was at stake than merely the military outcome of Israel's operation. The issue, rather, was Israel's ability to restore its deterrence power and uphold the principle that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity.(4) Israel's military operations were a good tool to fulfill this need for self-defense and did so effectively. The Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces, both to its leadership and to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army.(1) Doing this damage was necessary as Israel could never be safe with a strong terrorist regime in control of Gaza. As David Harris, Executive Director for the American Jewish Committee, argued: \"Israel could not tolerate a terrorist regime on its border that was launching repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli towns and villages.\"(5) Therefore there can be no debate that Israel had the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so.\n\nWhile it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fulfill them, Israel's right to make that judgment itself must be respected. Therefore Israel's military operations against Gaza were justified as legitimate self defense against Hamas and militant aggression which was putting the lives of Israeli citizens in jeopardy.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3873b074af46231661c5e17ad4357365
|
The foreign aid budget can be made more effective and transparent
While a second Obama administration is not going to cut back on foreign aid the Obama campaign however, does argue for pragmatic budgetary approaches to foreign aid, [1] creating transparency measures [2] to ensure that “assistance [is] more transparent, accountable and effective”. [3] The Obama administration has signed the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation [4] which makes transparency a key pillar of overseas development [5] and has succeeded in significantly increasing transparency; in 2010 the U.S. was ranked 24th [6] in Quality of Official Development Assistance rankings on transparency, by 2012 it had moved up to 9th. [7] It is also clear how beneficial transparency is for the recipients of aid; Uganda implemented Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in 1996. Surveys had shown that only 13% of funds for schools was actually getting to the schools but the introduction of PETS increased this to between 80-90% simply because it was public that the school should have received money. [8]
[1] ‘U.S. Foreign Aid By Country’, Huffington Post, 30 August 2012.
[2] Foreignassistance.gov.
[3] Shah, Rajiv, ‘Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of International Development Aid’, The White House Blog, 1 December 2011.
[4] ‘Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’, busanhlf4.org, 29 November – 1 December 2011.
[5] Atwood, Brian, ‘The Benefits of Transparency in Development’, OECD Insights, 3 April 2012.
[6] Baker, Gavin, ‘U.S. Scores Poorly on Transparency of Foreign Aid Spending’, OMB Watch, 7 October 2010.
[7] ‘Transparency and Learning’, Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2012.
[8] ‘Empowerment Case Studies: Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys – Application in Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana and Honduras’, World Bank.
|
[
{
"docid": "b219e9555027fb395b0e70b500ca4a19",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2]\n\n[1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012.\n\n[2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "42c0576d19f846ba0fba6315e047eba5",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more of it would. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The same money would benefit the economy much more if handed back to the citizen to spend themselves or directly invested in the United States. The developing world would then in turn benefit because more Americans spending means more purchasing of goods made in developing countries. The United States exports $2-3billion worth of goods to Africa every month while it imports around $6billion [1] clearly then Africa is benefiting from trade with the United States and more spending in the United States will benefit Africa.\n\n[1] ‘Trade in Goods with Africa’, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96f5468c4b0378d467a5ab5be08a651c",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national security. Foreign aid clearly does not benefit national security because the recipient will spend it how they want and often this will be in ways that are detrimental to U.S. security, whether this is though the aid being spent on products from China or being lost to corruption. Aid from the United States has often not been beneficial in the past the U.S. gave Egypt $1.5 billion per year in aid [1] yet is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan received $963 million and yet supports the Taliban fighting against the US in Afghanistan. [2]\n\n[1] Holan, Angie Drobnic, ‘Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel, says New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’, Tampa Bay Times, 4 February 2011.\n\n[2] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "468bc053c8f0fe328f24d761ddd239b1",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.\n\n[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.\n\n[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56396e39049963ce81f398854aa2df9a",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states Foreign aid is a minute part of the US budget as Obama has correctly argued “[it is wrong to] suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” [1] So very little of the money the US is borrowing is being spent on foreign aid.\n\nIt is also wrong to assert that the US government debt is borrowing money from China as most government borrowing comes from the US private sector. [2] China owns a mere 9.3% of US government debt with the majority being owed either to US individuals and institutions (41.7%) or to the Social Security Trust Fund (17.1%). [3]\n\n[1] Geiger, Jacob, ‘Barak Obama says foreign aid makes up 1 percent of U.S. budget’, Tampa Bay Times, 13 April 2011.\n\n[2] Krugman, Paul, ‘Fear-of-China Syndrome’, The New York Times, 30 August 2012.\n\n[3] ‘Who Owns U.S. Debt’, RealClearPolicy, 2 April 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6836518975daa9f74de1ce8f9cf97bb8",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.” [1] However it is wrong to maintain that this should be considered as a part of foreign aid instead the U.S. maintains the global commons because it gains most out of them, the U.S. military is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation and of the maintenance of space as a global commons as they allow the military’s global reach to be maintained. [2]\n\nThe United States may not be legally obligated to provide foreign aid and international development efforts but there are moral obligations as President Kennedy recognised when creating USAID: \"There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom.\" [3] Today this is just as true as it was then; the United States is still one of the richest states on earth. Moreover there is an international target of 0.7% of GDP being spent overseas development assistance which the United States has signed up to and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since it was first adopted in 1970. [4]\n\n[1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011.\n\n[2] Denmark, Abraham M., ‘Managing the Global Commons’, Washington Quarterly, 30 June 2010.\n\n[3] Kennedy, John F., ’90 – Special Message to the Congress on Foreign Aid.’, The American Presidency Project, 22 March 1961.\n\n[4] ‘The 0.7% ODA/GNI target – a history’, OSCE.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e329aafdd0a9fee3e769da993e661a1",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states Yes trade can help lift people out of poverty. But in order to do so there needs to be the right conditions; there needs to be infrastructure, an educated and healthy population, and of course the country must be able to feed itself. No country is going to be able to trade its way to growth if its goods cannot reach international markets. Freer trade has not obviously been a driver of growth; poverty has fallen while the Doha round of trade liberalisation has got nowhere. [1] Instead the policies that have succeeded for China have been mercantilist policies, China may rely on trade to export its goods but it succeeded in creating its manufacturing capacity because of currency manipulation and government subsidies, things that anyone for free trade would be against. [2]\n\n[1] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.\n\n[2] Prestowitz, Clyde, ‘China’s not breaking the rules. It’s playing a different game.’, Foreign Policy, 17 February 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2419a82140d45ca02479a3eaf16a3381",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states Foreign aid benefits the United States\n\nWhile foreign aid is obviously for the benefit of the recipient country that country is not the only one that benefits; U.S. business is often a major beneficiary. It does this in two ways: First they benefit directly through carrying out the contracts for supplying aid, for example Cargill was paid $96million for supplying food aid in 2010-11. [1] Secondly there are also indirect benefits. Through the work of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Obama administration hopes to “develop partnerships with countries committed to enabling the private sector investment that is the basis of sustained economic growth to open new markets for American goods, promote trade overseas, and create jobs here at home”. [2] Essentially, through foreign aid, both the economies of the developing world and the United States come out ahead. Even Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that the 1 percent the United States spends on foreign aid “not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing countries – which means it has an impact on our economy”. [3]\n\n[1] Provost, Claire, and Lawrence, Felicity, ‘US food aid programme criticised as ‘corporate welfare’ for grain giants’, guardian.co.uk, 18 July 2012.\n\n[2] ‘What we do’, USAID, 12 September 2012.\n\n[3] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4a0b77941a1d5c75984157266f0ec59",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states The aid budget has to increase to meet rising commitments\n\nDespite a large national deficit, the Obama administration has stated over [1] and over [2] again that they have no plans to cut Official Development Assistance (ODA), and the 2011 budget reflects that by putting the United States on a path to double foreign assistance by 2015. [3] The Obama administration has requested $56 billion for international affairs in Fiscal Year 2013 that would go towards USAID funding and programs. [4] This would go a considerable way towards the target, first pledged in 1970, of rich countries committing 0.7% of GNP to Official Development Assistance. [5]\n\nThis increase is necessary because Obama has increasing commitments to meet. The administration wants to embrace the United Nations Millennium Development Goals [6] to cut global poverty by 2015 in hopes that foreign assistance can help countries build “healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth”. [7] The Obama administration wants to increase foreign assistance to make investments to combat terrorism, corruption and transnational crime, improve global education and health, reduce poverty, build global food security, expand the Peace Corps, address climate change, stabilize post-conflict states, and reinforce conflict prevention.\n\nIn a speech promoting good governance in Ghana, President Obama stated, “the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by—it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.” [8] The goal remains to expand diplomatic and development capacity while renewing the United States as a global leader.\n\n[1] LaFranchi, Howard, ‘Obama at UN summit: foreign aid is ‘core pillar of American power’, The Christian Science Monitor, 22 September 2010.\n\n[2] Zeleny, Jeff, ‘Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views’, The New York Times, 24 April 2007.\n\n[3] ‘U.S. Department of State and Other International Programs’, Office of Management and Budget.\n\n[4] Troilo, Pete, ‘Ryan VP pick could yield clues on Romney’s foreign aid plans’, devex, 13 August 2012.\n\n[5] ‘The 0.7% target: An in depth-look’, Millennium Project, 2006.\n\n[6] We Can End Poverty 2015, UN.org.\n\n[7] ‘The Obama-Biden Plan’, Change.gov, 2008.\n\n[8] Wallis, William, ‘Obama calls for good governance in Africa’, Financial Times, 11 July 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5e13dac8e2b598cf57ccc1f7b0f26c5",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states Aid benefits National Security\n\nIn Obama’s 2012 campaign, promoting good governance through foreign aid makes sense for a range of foreign policy and development objectives. Through contributions in healthcare, education, poverty alleviation and infrastructure, investing in foreign aid and increasing the foreign aid budget will help create a more peaceful and safe global environment. Robert Gates, former US Secretary of Defense, has stated that “cutting aid jeopardizes US national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts.” [1] In much the same way as encouraging people to eat healthily will likely reduce expenditures on healthcare in the future so some spending on aid with resulting development and better perceptions of the United States can reduce conflicts in the future so saving money in the long run by preventing the need for expensive armed interventions.\n\n[1] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "714baafa7137b0c4dc2277d84e40a227",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states The focus should be on trade not on aid\n\nGovernor Romney does not prioritize encouraging good governance and stability abroad through foreign aid, and there have been no mentions of any plans to reduce global poverty, improve healthcare and engage in sustainable development. While foreign aid is not specifically mentioned in any campaign materials, “Mitt’s Plan” regarding Africa, for instance, declares, “a Romney administration will encourage and assist African nations to adopt policies that create business-friendly environments and combat governmental corruption.” Despite wanting to cut economic aid and contributions to the United Nations, World Bank and IMF, his campaign further argues, “greater market access across the continent for U.S. businesses will bolster job creation in Africa as well as in the United States.” [1] It is notable that the countries that have been most successful in reducing poverty have been those that have focused on trade to create economic growth rather than relying on aid; China has succeeded in bring its poverty down from 84% thirty years ago to 16% today through economic growth. [2] In spite of Romney’s calls for cutting foreign aid spending, his foreign policy is going to focus on international trade and job creation both domestically and abroad, which will benefit both the United States and international economies.\n\n[1] ‘Africa’, Romney Ryan.\n\n[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02fdbf0c83cc1d377fd69e2dac808ca7",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states We should not be borrowing to fund foreign aid\n\nAs a fiscal conservative, Governor Mitt Romney believes that Americans and the United States economy will be better off cutting foreign aid expenses. In an October 2011 Republican primary debate, Romney passionately defended the GOP stance of questioning humanitarian assistance and foreign aid. He said, “I happen to think it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give to another country for humanitarian aid . . . . We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are taking that borrowed money.” [1] This was a reference to the size of the deficit; currently Obama’s projected deficit for 2012 is $1.33 trillion [2] and much of that is borrowed from other countries and China has most holding $1.164 trillion as of June. [3] Romney’s campaign often compares President Barack Obama’s policies to those of Europe. He criticizes the Obama administration’s foreign assistance efforts as largely squandered by a fragmented Washington bureaucracy.\n\n[1] ‘Full Transcript CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate’, CNN, 18 October 2011.\n\n[2] ‘ Budget Overview’, Office of Management and Budget, 2012.\n\n[3] Capaccio, Tony, and Kruger, Daniel, ‘China’s U.S. Debt Holdings Aren’t Threat, Pentagon Says’, Bloomberg, 11 September 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcc8a7cc42c89b349f839720cb1ed508",
"text": "onal americas politics politics general obama vs romney should united states US spending should focus on defence rather than aid\n\nRomney believes that the United States should be focusing more on national security; however this in turn does benefit other nations so could be considered aid. Governor Romney was quoted as saying “foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.” [1] When it focuses on its own national security the United States is providing public goods for the rest of the world. These include reducing the incentives for others to engage in the use of force – ‘the global policeman’, maintaining open global markets, maintaining a virtual commons in cyberspace, preventing weapons proliferation [2] and maintaining freedom of navigation just as the United States is doing in the South China Sea. [3] All of these to a greater or lesser extent need US military forces to maintain them.\n\nThe Romney campaign rejects the notion that the United States has an obligation to rely on foreign aid in its international development efforts, wanting to “[cut] the ongoing foreign aid commitments” and “[you] start everything from zero”. Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, has proposed a budget that includes cutting international affairs and foreign assistance by 29 percent in 2012 and 44 percent by 2016, which would dramatically cut funds for USAID and their foreign aid programs. [4] The Republican party believes that cutting down all sorts of government spending, including international spending, would help bring the economy out of the deficit and back towards a balanced budget.\n\n[1] Rosenkranz, Rolf, ‘At GOP debate, presidential candidates vow to cut foreign aid’, devex, 20 October 2011.\n\n[2] Nye, Joseph S., ‘America and Global Public Goods’, Project Syndicate, 11 September 2007\n\n[3] Cronin, Dr. Patrick M., ‘Averting Conflict in the South China Sea’, Center for a New American Security, 4 September 2012.\n\n[4] Smith, Adam, et al., ‘U.S. foreign aid is not a luxury but a critical investment in global stability’, The Seattle Times, 17 April 2011.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
75ecb67f75eb5cccc67a214652a95e8b
|
The scheme does not prevent forgery or identity theft
The entire premise of national security and crime prevention falls when biometric identity cards are in fact incredibly easy to falsify. Microchips have already been forged in a matter of minutes in an experiment to determine their security [1] , and biometric information can be gained remotely by computer through ‘cracking’, ‘sniffing’ and ‘key-logging’ [2] . Moreover, common crimes which would not require any kind of identification to be committed – vehicle theft, burglary, criminal damage, common assault, mugging, rape and anti-social behaviour [3] – would not be combated at all by this measure. Given that hackers have managed to penetrate even the highest-security sites such as the CIA database [4] , there is not only a danger that individual cards would be hacked, but that the greater database of information could be hacked. There is no such thing as an impenetrable security system. We would be far better off using the money which would potentially be funnelled into identity cards to increase computer security and police presence.
[1] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published on 06/08/2008. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4467106.ece on 10/09/11.
[2] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11
[3] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.
[4] The Telegraph. ‘CIA website hacked by Lulz Security’. Published on 16/06/2011. Accessed from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html on 10/09/11
|
[
{
"docid": "1fa1e4558bfe316ab18ae66170473fbe",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards While these crimes are obviously a problem, it doesn’t mean that other crimes which can be challenged by this scheme should be allowed to continue. Identity cards would at least make it more difficult for fraud to occur, which in cases of petty criminals would provide an active deterrent for them to try it in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3f721387b033f7e1aea7fcc025ee503",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Foreigntravel/AirTravel/DG_176737 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c9ac31ccb1ccbbe5ba6b53c8c1ad1b7",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards This point alludes to a potentially tiny minority of incidents. It is likely that most people, realising the importance of their card, would not lose it. In cases where it is used properly, it could be an enormous benefit to the user and increase their convenience.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48bb3922251d219aa8e801dce4bad0cc",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2] level of crime among immigrants provides a reason for the seemingly disproportionate targeting of minority groups by police authorities.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d42426d3fcb540044adc69cd56e9748b",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Just as some people have difficulty remembering so many passwords, so some people have difficulty remembering where they misplaced their belongings. This motion offers no solution if somebody should lose their identity card; given that it may be used to have access to a bank account, act as a travel card or simply be used to grant general access to the bearer, how could they possibly survive if they lost it? It is reasonable to assume that a biometric identity card might take as long or longer than a passport (which contains some biometric data) to be replaced. Given that in the UK it takes three weeks to receive a new passport if you lose it [1] and can cost between £77.50 and £112.50, this is simply too expensive and too slow for the average citizen to be able to continue with their daily life. A week without access to daily necessities such as your own bank account is too long to wait.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/howlongittakesandurgentappplications/DG_174148 on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "036703b11458c92f489983b6c621e09e",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards It is perfectly legitimate for an innocent citizen to oppose identity cards on the grounds of how they threaten to alter society. The oppressive measure of gaining and essentially holding to ransom everybody’s intimate personal details and biometric data is hardly a soft measure; it is radical and may completely change the way in which society functions. Moreover, the fear that their card will be lost or stolen [1] , or that their information could be hacked and used by somebody else, is more than ample reason to fear or oppose the introduction of identity cards.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e429eaae1fc47344c2050efe0b03faf5",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that medical emergencies require fast action – but that’s the exact reason why we use medical alert bracelets [1] . We already have a simply, non-intrusive way of ensuring that somebody who suffers from an illness such as epilepsy or diabetes can be quickly identified – without the need for an expensive and illiberal measure such as identity cards. Moreover, in the need to contact a relative, why not simply use their mobile number? Even if mobile umbers were now required by the government at all times, this is still far less intrusive than the scheme which proposition proposes.\n\n[ 1 Accessed from http://medicsalertbracelets.com/ on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62949f48cb3cda5287e9a8d892825577",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Many illegal immigrants already take steps to avoid official identification. For example, they frequently take jobs which pay cash-in-hand [1] so that they do not have to set up and authorise a bank account, or have a social security number. There is not reason why this would not continue. Moreover, this measure simply provides more fuel for injustice. These is already a problem of police officers targeting minority groups for ‘stop-and-search- checks [2] ; under this motion, this injustice would be amplified under the guise of checking for illegal immigrants. This measure is contradictory to the notion of democracy.\n\n[1] BBC. ‘The British illegal immigrants’. Published 02/02/2005. Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4226949.stm on 10/09/11\n\n[2] BBC. ‘Police stop and search powers ‘target minorities’. Published 15/03/2010. Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f160c7306ff0d6524857a4c1955c3af5",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Many countries – including America [1] and Britain [2] - already use biometric chips in passports to reinforce proof of identity when crossing national borders. If this data does not work in this case, especially since security has increased hugely since 9/11 [3] , there is no evidence to support the idea that it would suddenly be improved if this chip was in an identity card instead of an official national passport. Moreover, the biometric information on these cards has already been proved faulty. Experts have demonstrated that they could copy the biometric information provided on identity cards ‘in minutes’ [4] . Identity cards are unnecessary and will not help to prevent the crimes mentioned.\n\n[1] The Economist. ‘Have chip, will travel.’ Published 17/07/2009. Accessed from http://www.economist.com/node/14066895 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/Applicationinformation/DG_174159 on 10/09/11\n\n[3] Accesssed from http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_airport_security_far/ on 10/09/11\n\n[4] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published 06/08/2008. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4467106.ece on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70fafcd1d18caf7721aba55e7978c0e7",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards An identity card scheme is open to subversion and abuse\n\nDemanding identity cards has already been shown as a way for police officers and officials to harass minority groups by singling them out for questioning and searches [1] . This motion would simply serve as a thinly-veiled excuse for more intrusive searches which the law would not otherwise allow. This motion could also lead police to believe that those with a criminal record on their identity cards who just happen to be near a crime scene when a crime happens must be involved. This would lead to an unfair perversion of justice as those individuals are seen as the ‘usual suspects’, perhaps blinding the police eye to the real culprits if they did not previously have a criminal record.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/ on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0ff393a854285c2969166aa90bb8e80",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent\n\nThe more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’ [1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to prove that you are the owner of the card would be to have your biological information – like your fingerprints - scanned [2] . Moreover, if your details were stolen online and used without your knowledge, the ‘illusion of security’ [3] surrounding the cards would make it very difficult to probe that it was not in fact you who was using the card. Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft also pointed out that ‘if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones’ [4] . It is also unreasonable to expect someone to carry this card on them at all times, particularly if police or other authorities are able to stop and search on demand. Overall, the introduction of biometric identity card would create enormous problems for the everyday user if the slightest thing went wrong.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[4] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1abe076748194ab4e51ea6ff4e88d443",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty\n\nIntroducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record [1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups [2] . Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn258.pdf on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "528da051ca84771ac9f7eece124f6e7f",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards confer advantages on their users\n\nThe average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for of identification and save the user the hassle of carrying so many documents around with them. Given that ‘the average person now has to remember five passwords, five PIN numbers, two number plates, three security ID numbers and three bank account numbers just to get through everyday life’ [1] , there is evidently a need for a single, concise form of identification. Moreover, it would help them to identify the people they have to interact with. There have been numerous cases of criminals posing as company officials such as gas workers in order to gain access to somebody’s home and steal from them [2] [3] . These identity cards would particularly help vulnerable citizens who are the most at risk of this kind of injustice. For this reason these cards should be compulsory, they would not be much use as identification if not everyone had one that could be checked by anybody.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150874/too_many_passwords_or_not_enough_brain_power.html on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/localnews/9235106.Edmonton_burglar_who_preyed_on_pensioners_jailed/ on 10/09/11\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/news-articles/cash-stolen-by-distraction-burglars-in-kidderminster.html on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "759244aa805f97585823a3f74ccc3d8c",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Only those who are guilty have anything to fear from systems that monitor and confirm identities\n\nLaw-abiding citizens who have not and do not intend to commit any crimes should not have a problem with this motion. Carrying a single card is not a huge burden to an individual. Rather they can reap the benefits of convenience to them personally, alongside the added security benefit to their whole nation which will help to keep them safe. As it is to be issued to everyone there will not even be the inconvenience of having to spend a long time applying for the card as it is in the government’s interest to make it as simple as possible with mobile offices taking the relevant biometrics where the people live so as to have the least impact on individual’s lives as possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9282d0871f377cd08331777dfaf207c",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards can assist in the efficient monitoring of immigration\n\nIllegal immigration is an enormous problem in Western nations. The UK estimates that there are more that one million illegal immigrants living in Britain [1] , likely around 2.2 million [2] . For America, this number could be as high as 11 million [3] . Identity cards would mean that, even if illegal immigrants did succeed in crossing the border, they would most likely be found out because they could not pass routine security checks required on an everyday basis because they would not have been issued an identity card. Given that illegal immigration is frequently linked to international crime such as trafficking [4] , this is clearly a problem which we need to address in a new way.\n\n[1] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7107598.ece on 10/09/11.\n\n[2] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7107598.ece on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] The New York Times. ‘Number of illegal immigrants in US fell, study says.’ Published 01/09/2010. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/us/02immig.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[4] Accessed from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/pub45270chap2.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3180464241b6b2c2b733fc164416254e",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards improve public safety\n\nIdentity cards could prove a key instrument to combat crime, terrorism and fraud. Given that terrorists have used fake passports to cross borders in the past [1] , a sophisticated identity card, possibly containing specific biometric information which cannot be easily faked, could be crucial in preventing terrorist acts in the future. In cases where the police were suspicious, they could rapidly check the identities of many people near a crime scene, which would make their investigation much swifter and more effective. The CBI also believes that ‘the creation of a single source of identity data’ [2] in the form of biometric identity cards would also decrease identity fraud. Given that identity fraud currently costs the UK £2.7 billion per year [3] , Canada over 10 million Canadian dollars per year [4] , and in America identity fraud relating to credit cards alone costs around $8.6 billion per year [5] , this is obviously a serious problem under the status quo. These crimes would be much more difficult if biometric data was required for financial transactions and other activities such as leaving or entering a country; identity cards are the best way forwards. The value of ID cards in combating terrorism and crime is much reduced if not everyone has them as the guilty would be less likely to want to get such cards unless they could somehow fake them.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C08%5C10%5Cstory_10-8-2010_pg7_17 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/page.php?217#arguments_identity_fraud on 10/09/11\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/nfa/ on 10/09/11\n\n[4] Accessed from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/scams-fraudes/id-theft-vol-eng.htm on 10/09/11\n\n[5] Accessed from http://www.banking-gateway.com/microsites/oracle/US%20Card%20Fraud.pdf on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9936b08f7d150e27ae22faf1a6f027ef",
"text": " rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger\n\nAs biometric identity cards would be able to store medical data, they could be instrumental in saving somebody’s life. For example, if somebody suddenly suffered an epileptic fit, it would be much faster for medical staff to find out their illness and medical history no matter where there medical records are held as everyone’s records would be linked to their ID card [1] , allowing them to be treated faster and more efficiently. It would also be easier to contact a friend or relative if they knew the last place where they had used their identity card, allowing faster unity of family in a medical emergency.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-for-europe/science-eco-bite_en.html on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0e66fd8545a33b20400108daaee0f86f
|
It would help distinguish between levels of elections
The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.
|
[
{
"docid": "32539fa6d40b7cc8d2916ef5203706bf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "35465690eaaa7690126b7a709eb778a7",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eded89efba688c31be3c9642549d993",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "016a77ad7aa0bf9445ec071ecf7b03cf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a103cb4724f532dd796b2120f2139df1",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9207ca31b2e00ea0de9f7026eba618a",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting. [1]\n\n[1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu, http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/the-council-adopts-new-eu-youth-policy-framework_en.htm , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee6b715327ee7e0d33d3f09d8838983",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95d8de4520586477f61c4cfd802dfab1",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attempt at voting may help increase their experience making it easier when they have numerous ballots to fill in so overall reducing voting error.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b05b5102a8fc8c612df09e7e41f937e2",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88053dc34f2c09bd8d66b0218a8f8c83",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes\n\nThroughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.\n\nYet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.\n\n[1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf , p.506\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf14e49d4802d2ebfb76f7955a4191d9",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Youth are not represented in politics\n\nYoung people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.\n\n[1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf\n\n[2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics , accessed 3 May 2013\n\n[3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/why-europe-really-must-pursue-structural-reform-clive-crook.html\n\n[4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2bdb06cc0ae5ad70843cc00ba7322c0",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament The voting age should be the same across the Union\n\nIt is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others.\n\n[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "016faafd1a16f23419d4a99939846acf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament An opportunity for civic studies\n\nThere would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.\n\nTeaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.\n\n[1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html\n\n[2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf p.13\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95ab61884c2346924f2736148eed1f14",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes\n\nThe European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules. [1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last.\n\n[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a63836097572a8b659f42dd006a510c4",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament EU elections would put young people off voting\n\nLet’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues \"the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place\". [1]\n\nTo make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.\n\n[1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04954.pdf , p.9\n\n[2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0407e8467a52601a72ceb45d1eb6eb29",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament There should not be different voting ages for different elections\n\nThere can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections. [1]\n\n[1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baf8d529a36b8f3789ec44468a8fe5ba",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Would complicate elections\n\nElections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting. [1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots.\n\n[1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf , p.3\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
12b87c5ba29558135ca6394e8f246c41
|
A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes
The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules. [1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last.
[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013
|
[
{
"docid": "b05b5102a8fc8c612df09e7e41f937e2",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f9207ca31b2e00ea0de9f7026eba618a",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting. [1]\n\n[1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu, http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/the-council-adopts-new-eu-youth-policy-framework_en.htm , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee6b715327ee7e0d33d3f09d8838983",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95d8de4520586477f61c4cfd802dfab1",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attempt at voting may help increase their experience making it easier when they have numerous ballots to fill in so overall reducing voting error.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32539fa6d40b7cc8d2916ef5203706bf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35465690eaaa7690126b7a709eb778a7",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eded89efba688c31be3c9642549d993",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "016a77ad7aa0bf9445ec071ecf7b03cf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a103cb4724f532dd796b2120f2139df1",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a63836097572a8b659f42dd006a510c4",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament EU elections would put young people off voting\n\nLet’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues \"the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place\". [1]\n\nTo make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.\n\n[1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04954.pdf , p.9\n\n[2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0407e8467a52601a72ceb45d1eb6eb29",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament There should not be different voting ages for different elections\n\nThere can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections. [1]\n\n[1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baf8d529a36b8f3789ec44468a8fe5ba",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Would complicate elections\n\nElections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting. [1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots.\n\n[1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf , p.3\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a605fe3a86ef70dd485953d54bd78578",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament It would help distinguish between levels of elections\n\nThe number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88053dc34f2c09bd8d66b0218a8f8c83",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes\n\nThroughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.\n\nYet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.\n\n[1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf , p.506\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf14e49d4802d2ebfb76f7955a4191d9",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Youth are not represented in politics\n\nYoung people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.\n\n[1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf\n\n[2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics , accessed 3 May 2013\n\n[3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/why-europe-really-must-pursue-structural-reform-clive-crook.html\n\n[4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2bdb06cc0ae5ad70843cc00ba7322c0",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament The voting age should be the same across the Union\n\nIt is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others.\n\n[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "016faafd1a16f23419d4a99939846acf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament An opportunity for civic studies\n\nThere would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.\n\nTeaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.\n\n[1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html\n\n[2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf p.13\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
35d9595d16eaeed08551ad26d5ef5283
|
Would complicate elections
Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting. [1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots.
[1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf , p.3
|
[
{
"docid": "95d8de4520586477f61c4cfd802dfab1",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attempt at voting may help increase their experience making it easier when they have numerous ballots to fill in so overall reducing voting error.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f9207ca31b2e00ea0de9f7026eba618a",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting. [1]\n\n[1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu, http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/the-council-adopts-new-eu-youth-policy-framework_en.htm , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee6b715327ee7e0d33d3f09d8838983",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b05b5102a8fc8c612df09e7e41f937e2",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32539fa6d40b7cc8d2916ef5203706bf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35465690eaaa7690126b7a709eb778a7",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eded89efba688c31be3c9642549d993",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "016a77ad7aa0bf9445ec071ecf7b03cf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a103cb4724f532dd796b2120f2139df1",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95ab61884c2346924f2736148eed1f14",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes\n\nThe European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules. [1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last.\n\n[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a63836097572a8b659f42dd006a510c4",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament EU elections would put young people off voting\n\nLet’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues \"the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place\". [1]\n\nTo make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.\n\n[1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04954.pdf , p.9\n\n[2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0407e8467a52601a72ceb45d1eb6eb29",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament There should not be different voting ages for different elections\n\nThere can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections. [1]\n\n[1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a605fe3a86ef70dd485953d54bd78578",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament It would help distinguish between levels of elections\n\nThe number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88053dc34f2c09bd8d66b0218a8f8c83",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes\n\nThroughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.\n\nYet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.\n\n[1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf , p.506\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf14e49d4802d2ebfb76f7955a4191d9",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament Youth are not represented in politics\n\nYoung people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.\n\n[1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf\n\n[2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics , accessed 3 May 2013\n\n[3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/why-europe-really-must-pursue-structural-reform-clive-crook.html\n\n[4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2bdb06cc0ae5ad70843cc00ba7322c0",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament The voting age should be the same across the Union\n\nIt is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others.\n\n[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "016faafd1a16f23419d4a99939846acf",
"text": "onal europe politics voting house would allow voting 16 european parliament An opportunity for civic studies\n\nThere would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.\n\nTeaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.\n\n[1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html\n\n[2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf p.13\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5de4b706567b6c4547fd7d33e0d454ce
|
It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate
Most delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign.
It would be unfair to all concerned if they had to compete for their place at the convention with senators and congressmen, as is the case with the Republicans where the elected representatives often get to be delegates due to being a recognisable name. [i] Likewise ensuring that former party leaders and other elders are in attendance shows both continuity and unity.
It seems unlikely that the average activist from Arkansas would be likely to be sent if the alternative was W.J. Clinton
[i] Klonsky, Joanna, ‘Backgrounder The Role of Delegates in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process’, Council on Foreign Relations, 10 June 2008, http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/role-delegates-us-presidential-nomin...
|
[
{
"docid": "1d69247f95e9731a35b240a60d5b7493",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so.\n\nWorking on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002, [i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite.\n\nIndeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair.\n\n[i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002, http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/BC021002.HTM\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2e9d324068164c8e446e2c7f72ba228a",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign.\n\nEqually the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that party grandees considered that the voters had made ‘the wrong choice’.\n\nThe reason that the Mondale case was contentious was that he wanted – and had wanted for some time – the party apparatus to have an even greater say but this was the best he could get. It also gives the lie to the party ‘experts’ capacity to ensure winning candidates are selected.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61f4b30e9d0aca74ebf8091baa7c592",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working.\n\nTheir intervention in 1984 to nudge Mondale over the winning line produced a candidate who lost in 49 states. If ever there were a situation when the party elders subtle understanding of the electorate might have been useful then it was at that election.\n\nInstead they supported the party insider with a mechanism he had helped design and for exactly the purpose he had wanted it in place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aff19fcc20b8353bdbef4bca63f2dcb",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party. [i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient.\n\nThere is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”.\n\n[i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delega...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "925b51480cbd6c62ab51995ae82a3fed",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme.\n\nFor anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc9c9e6d3ab8e39452a1fa8bee160d90",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials.\n\nSuperdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home.\n\nRather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f87f0f83b9a9d2daa770e4f9477e5f",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal\n\nThe superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority.\n\nImagine a scenario in which a candidate had won the popular vote only to face a major scandal on the eve of the convention. The role of those electors with a free hand would suddenly look very useful to party members.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93dd7c8d89c11ec2bcbecee66faeff99",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes\n\nIt is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea.\n\nIn essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis. [i]\n\n[i] Thurow, Glen E., \"The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image,\" in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00f1ce1340f229b001680abdb02dc1e7",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men\n\nThe influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama. [i]\n\nThere is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members.\n\nAllowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices.\n\n[i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ac3d72b470364d459009b586b0bc60",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support\n\nSuperdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy. [i]\n\nThe system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted [ii] .\n\n[i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008, http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/ohios-superdelegates-hold-endorsements-...\n\n[ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "945547dcc278771678fb6782a61a8c7d",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic\n\nIt’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same [i] .\n\nRegardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party - to be justifying such a situation.\n\n[i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
61ddea4a0870355282c0359b6ab0d1d3
|
The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes
It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea.
In essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis. [i]
[i] Thurow, Glen E., "The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image," in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987
|
[
{
"docid": "e61f4b30e9d0aca74ebf8091baa7c592",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working.\n\nTheir intervention in 1984 to nudge Mondale over the winning line produced a candidate who lost in 49 states. If ever there were a situation when the party elders subtle understanding of the electorate might have been useful then it was at that election.\n\nInstead they supported the party insider with a mechanism he had helped design and for exactly the purpose he had wanted it in place.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2e9d324068164c8e446e2c7f72ba228a",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign.\n\nEqually the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that party grandees considered that the voters had made ‘the wrong choice’.\n\nThe reason that the Mondale case was contentious was that he wanted – and had wanted for some time – the party apparatus to have an even greater say but this was the best he could get. It also gives the lie to the party ‘experts’ capacity to ensure winning candidates are selected.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d69247f95e9731a35b240a60d5b7493",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so.\n\nWorking on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002, [i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite.\n\nIndeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair.\n\n[i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002, http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/BC021002.HTM\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aff19fcc20b8353bdbef4bca63f2dcb",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party. [i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient.\n\nThere is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”.\n\n[i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delega...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "925b51480cbd6c62ab51995ae82a3fed",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme.\n\nFor anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc9c9e6d3ab8e39452a1fa8bee160d90",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials.\n\nSuperdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home.\n\nRather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d072f370aed1a99b3a9da0d4e0d59e0",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate\n\nMost delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign.\n\nIt would be unfair to all concerned if they had to compete for their place at the convention with senators and congressmen, as is the case with the Republicans where the elected representatives often get to be delegates due to being a recognisable name. [i] Likewise ensuring that former party leaders and other elders are in attendance shows both continuity and unity.\n\nIt seems unlikely that the average activist from Arkansas would be likely to be sent if the alternative was W.J. Clinton\n\n[i] Klonsky, Joanna, ‘Backgrounder The Role of Delegates in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process’, Council on Foreign Relations, 10 June 2008, http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/role-delegates-us-presidential-nomin...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f87f0f83b9a9d2daa770e4f9477e5f",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal\n\nThe superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority.\n\nImagine a scenario in which a candidate had won the popular vote only to face a major scandal on the eve of the convention. The role of those electors with a free hand would suddenly look very useful to party members.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00f1ce1340f229b001680abdb02dc1e7",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men\n\nThe influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama. [i]\n\nThere is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members.\n\nAllowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices.\n\n[i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ac3d72b470364d459009b586b0bc60",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support\n\nSuperdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy. [i]\n\nThe system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted [ii] .\n\n[i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008, http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/ohios-superdelegates-hold-endorsements-...\n\n[ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "945547dcc278771678fb6782a61a8c7d",
"text": "politics general government voting house would abolish superdelegate system One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic\n\nIt’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same [i] .\n\nRegardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party - to be justifying such a situation.\n\n[i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f2ab5e47b807f5721bae56c89e3266b5
|
Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.
Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans, [1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’. [2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation. One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur. [3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.
[1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/266932/latest-ap-poll-sample...
[2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, http://qmss.columbia.edu/files_qmss/imce_shared/Abroff_Thesis_01_06_10.pdf
[3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php
|
[
{
"docid": "be22e323f2b2e7155493199896cd69b6",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c7c6a2f684cea63c13ca3c3d9ae46e52",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique.\n\nAnd, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue. There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cc0a341d533059967442a20457e7670",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election. However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb7defa5975813a0b6323f68d9de622",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur. However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1b9ec4dcbc991692dca2b7ddd4460c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.\n\nThe observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle. Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls. We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1783434e383ae8a19ccc2579917c433c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.\n\nAlso, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.\n\nOpinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8237e3896a3b3fbefb72387d77a9c86f",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned. Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous. Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26500e5c9c7dda45128400790187eeb5",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice. The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3032eb502f2825ceacfd96200964ee50",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.\n\nSecond, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5051d1b4559471df259b32878bcf3a9",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed. [1]\n\n[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b7447f78d7a84f7b34af0165590ace5",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.\n\nWhen opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38f08e63281e4fefca612cfbb16bda16",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.\n\nTactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’. [1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.\n\n[1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&source=gbs_book_other_ve... p.202\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcffe099472432a2650b17ca636d021c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic : Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate\n\nIn democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.\n\nDemocracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]\n\n[1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1999/7/article12.en.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e6deb8228370d30809c260d0ba9a13",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.\n\nThis would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls. There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice. Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55af8cc42548ca2713de34118a34b742",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.\n\nThey provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56bad2ed0a09f59e8d3dde0a2e669e88",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Citizens should be respected for their opinions\n\nOpinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.\n\nAdditionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms. There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition.\n\nA well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points. [1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals.\n\n[1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mef/mef03/mef03c\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "390fac50372843b60bbb476c8a6a64ab",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.\n\nThe proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need. [1]\n\n[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c605052ab1d0f42ea8abdea3ef6870a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected\n\nThey publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard.\n\nRestricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period.\n\nDemocracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfb3f1c00ce61ea3ac2f2bfbdbe7e0d",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.\n\nIt is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
1c8dddd9b29ef039c20e94d1e1a86968
|
Citizens should be respected for their opinions
Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.
Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms. There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition.
A well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points. [1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals.
[1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mef/mef03/mef03c
|
[
{
"docid": "3032eb502f2825ceacfd96200964ee50",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.\n\nSecond, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1783434e383ae8a19ccc2579917c433c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.\n\nAlso, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.\n\nOpinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8237e3896a3b3fbefb72387d77a9c86f",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned. Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous. Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26500e5c9c7dda45128400790187eeb5",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice. The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5051d1b4559471df259b32878bcf3a9",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed. [1]\n\n[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be22e323f2b2e7155493199896cd69b6",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7c6a2f684cea63c13ca3c3d9ae46e52",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique.\n\nAnd, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue. There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cc0a341d533059967442a20457e7670",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election. However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb7defa5975813a0b6323f68d9de622",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur. However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1b9ec4dcbc991692dca2b7ddd4460c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.\n\nThe observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle. Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls. We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55af8cc42548ca2713de34118a34b742",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.\n\nThey provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "390fac50372843b60bbb476c8a6a64ab",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.\n\nThe proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need. [1]\n\n[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c605052ab1d0f42ea8abdea3ef6870a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected\n\nThey publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard.\n\nRestricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period.\n\nDemocracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfb3f1c00ce61ea3ac2f2bfbdbe7e0d",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.\n\nIt is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e735ab0e8ac4b16a500276b02c3f565",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.\n\nSince opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans, [1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’. [2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation. One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur. [3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.\n\n[1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/266932/latest-ap-poll-sample...\n\n[2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, http://qmss.columbia.edu/files_qmss/imce_shared/Abroff_Thesis_01_06_10.pdf\n\n[3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b7447f78d7a84f7b34af0165590ace5",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.\n\nWhen opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38f08e63281e4fefca612cfbb16bda16",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.\n\nTactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’. [1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.\n\n[1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&source=gbs_book_other_ve... p.202\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcffe099472432a2650b17ca636d021c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic : Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate\n\nIn democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.\n\nDemocracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]\n\n[1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1999/7/article12.en.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e6deb8228370d30809c260d0ba9a13",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.\n\nThis would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls. There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice. Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2ef409c29f7bc915ae99c4cc957609ad
|
Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.
The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need. [1]
[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx
|
[
{
"docid": "8237e3896a3b3fbefb72387d77a9c86f",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned. Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous. Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1783434e383ae8a19ccc2579917c433c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.\n\nAlso, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.\n\nOpinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26500e5c9c7dda45128400790187eeb5",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice. The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3032eb502f2825ceacfd96200964ee50",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.\n\nSecond, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5051d1b4559471df259b32878bcf3a9",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed. [1]\n\n[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be22e323f2b2e7155493199896cd69b6",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7c6a2f684cea63c13ca3c3d9ae46e52",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique.\n\nAnd, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue. There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cc0a341d533059967442a20457e7670",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election. However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb7defa5975813a0b6323f68d9de622",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur. However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1b9ec4dcbc991692dca2b7ddd4460c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.\n\nThe observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle. Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls. We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55af8cc42548ca2713de34118a34b742",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.\n\nThey provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56bad2ed0a09f59e8d3dde0a2e669e88",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Citizens should be respected for their opinions\n\nOpinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.\n\nAdditionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms. There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition.\n\nA well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points. [1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals.\n\n[1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mef/mef03/mef03c\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c605052ab1d0f42ea8abdea3ef6870a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected\n\nThey publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard.\n\nRestricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period.\n\nDemocracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfb3f1c00ce61ea3ac2f2bfbdbe7e0d",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.\n\nIt is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e735ab0e8ac4b16a500276b02c3f565",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.\n\nSince opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans, [1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’. [2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation. One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur. [3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.\n\n[1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/266932/latest-ap-poll-sample...\n\n[2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, http://qmss.columbia.edu/files_qmss/imce_shared/Abroff_Thesis_01_06_10.pdf\n\n[3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b7447f78d7a84f7b34af0165590ace5",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.\n\nWhen opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38f08e63281e4fefca612cfbb16bda16",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.\n\nTactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’. [1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.\n\n[1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&source=gbs_book_other_ve... p.202\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcffe099472432a2650b17ca636d021c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic : Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate\n\nIn democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.\n\nDemocracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]\n\n[1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1999/7/article12.en.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e6deb8228370d30809c260d0ba9a13",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes opinion polls harm democratic Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.\n\nThis would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls. There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice. Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d73c579a2393a715f18f749ecff3848e
|
Sanctions are indiscriminate
The problem with sanctions is that they are almost always indiscriminate; Iran’s sanctions today are an example where the international community’s concerns are entirely with the government, over nuclear weapons, not the people yet the result has been a doubling in the price of staple foodstuffs and rapidly rising unemployment. [1]
This will equally be the case here. While sanctioners will try to target the sanctions the fact is there is nothing to target with sanctions that would not affect everyday lives. Hackers are ordinary people so clearly sanctions will affect others like themselves. The most obvious reactions involve the internet but blocking access to internet services, or penalising ISP’s, or cutting off technology transfers, harm everyone else as much as hackers. Often this harm is in the form of simply making the internet less safe for people in that country because they will have to turn to pirated versions of software. IDC and Microsoft estimate the chances of being infected with malware when using pirated software at one in three [2] so it is no surprise that the Chinese government in October 2012 launched a campaign to have government and companies purchase legal software. [3]
[1] The Economist, ‘A red line and a reeling rial’, 6 October 2012, http://www.economist.com/node/21564229
[2] IDC, ‘White Paper: The Dangerous World of Counterfeit and Pirated Software’, Microsoft, March 2013, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/presskits/antipiracy/docs/IDC030513.pdf p.3
[3] Xinhua, ‘Chinese gov’t says no to pirated software’, People’s Daily Online, 26 April 2013, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8224829.html
|
[
{
"docid": "de5b3238fbb3ac349928f6db76d30055",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted The aim of sanctions does not have to be to directly affect the individuals doing the hacking, though in some cases this may be possible. Rather the aim is to change the attitude towards regulation and enforcement by the central government and possibly by the people as a whole. If the people of a country believe they are suffering as a result of the hackers in their midst they will be much more likely to demand their government make cracking down on such activities a priority.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a570b4c568cf1c7599f2848baab43234",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted This will clearly depend on the country engaging sanctions; sanctions from the US or EU will be much more significant than sanctions from the Philippines. Most countries however are a part of larger trade blocks; sanctions from the Philippines may not be much of a threat but sanctions from ASEAN would be much more compelling. Using such regional organisations can help nations get around the problems of agreement associated with broader UN sanctions. There have already been calls for groups such as ASEAN to work together against cyber attacks [1] and these groupings could be expanded to include other nations that agree with the policy on an ad hoc basis in much the same way as Japan is looking to join with ASEAN on such defence. [2]\n\n[1] Minnick, Wendell, ‘Malaysia Calls for ASEAN ‘Master Plan’ to Fight Cyber Attacks’, Defense News, 3 June 2012, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120603/DEFREG03/306030004/Malaysia-Calls-ASEAN-8216-Master-Plan-8217-Fight-Cyber-Attacks\n\n[2] Westlake, Adam, ‘Japan pushes to form cyber-defense network with other ASEAN countries’, Japan Daily Press, 8 October 2012, http://japandailypress.com/japan-pushes-to-form-cyber-defense-network-with-other-asean-countries-0814818\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "550238bcfc2ab4ec7f6dfc7280d1cc18",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Even taking it at face value that most of these hackers are independent actors not a part of a state policy there would still be solid reasoning behind sanctions. That most cyber-attacks have a financial motive implies that sanctions are the best response; as it is hitting them in an area that the attackers are clearly interested in. As for those who are attacking for ‘patriotic’ reasons if they are truly patriots they will stop when they see their efforts are really harming their country not helping it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34097e28e0b8f6a8cb3aec9afa70c9d1",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Cooperation is not a helpful alternative as it really means status quo when we can see that the status quo is not going to reduce cyber-attacks or bring recompense. Rather this is precisely what sanctions are needed for; to encourage states that harbour cyber criminals and hackers to use their law enforcement capabilities to crack down on such attacks.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "940fa23eaed6e7c67537df1ed3ad4bcb",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions cannot be very finely targeted and will always hit other groups as well as the cyber attackers. The chances of knowing specific individuals who were responsible are next to zero so those individuals cannot be targeted directly. This is the whole problem with cyber-attacks; they are very difficult to pin down. In the best case then sanctions are applied against the right target and happen to hit others as well; for example hackers are not the only new who want advanced computer equipment. At worst the sanctions will completely miss their target; it would be a major embarrassment for a country to impose sanctions for a cyber-attack only for it to later be discovered that the sanctions are against an innocent party through whom the attack had been routed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c551698e247221f10e97b2cdfaa4534f",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted An asymmetric response to cyber-attacks in the form of sanctions may prevent escalation, but they could also simply encourage a cyber-attacker to do more knowing that sanctions cannot stop cyber-attacks. Sanctions in the past have rarely changed policy; Sanctions against Cuba did not result in overthrowing Castro, sanctions have not changed North Korea or Iran’s policy towards nuclear weapons, so there is little reason that sanctions would stop cyber-attacks. [1] Instead the country being sanctioned will find a way around and quite possibly escalate themselves much as North Korea has upped the stakes whenever new sanctions are imposed, most recently by cancelling a hotline to the South. [2]\n\n[1] Friedman, Lara, ‘Getting over the sanctions delusion’, Foreign Policy The Middle East Channel, 14 March 2010, http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/15/getting_over_the_sanctions_delusion\n\n[2] Branigan, Tania, ‘Expanded UN sanctions on North Korea prompt rage from Pyongyang’, guardian.co.uk, 8 March 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/08/north-korea-rages-un-sanctions\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "536da921f3d72ea7b5d887153c933e06",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted How can there ever be deterrence when the attacker believes they will not be caught, or that if they are the sanctions swill harm others not themselves? When the problem with preventing cyber-attacks is the difficulty of tracing the source [1] then deterrence becomes more and more difficult to apply. This is not like the Cold War where both superpowers could be certain that if they launched an attack there would be a devastating response. In this instance there is no certainly; the attacker believes they a, won't be caught, b, there will be no response and c, that the response won't affect them, and finally even if they are affected unless they are caught most times they will believe they will get away with it next time round.\n\n[1] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tracking-cyber-hackers\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44dd77c5d9a5ca707c222511479fae9e",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009. [1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred.\n\n[1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92303bde9bd0015e765654eb5b27c1cd",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions won't harm the hackers\n\nSanctions are typically used as a response to the actions of another state, not the actions of a private actor. Much cyber espionage is not carried out by government entities such as the army or intelligence services. It is also not encouraged by government regulation. Rather it is carried out by private actors whether this is criminal organisations or businesses seeking to undermine their rivals and learn their secrets this is usually with a financial motive (75% of data breaches) [1] , or else by individuals motivated by nationalism and patriotism to attack those they see as their nation’s enemies. It is difficult to see how sanctions against the nation as a whole affect these groups and individuals. This is certainly the case in China where many such as the ‘China Eagle Union’ admit to hacking for nationalist reasons rather than being told by the government. [2]\n\nA response such as sanctions are simply likely to breed more resentment that the other power is attempting to bully their nation. The hackers only possible response is then more hacking. For those sponsored by companies if their company is hit by sanctions it simply becomes all the more necessary to find methods of getting ahead to offset any harm by sanctions.\n\n[1] Verizon RISK Team, ‘2013 Data Breach Investigations Report’, Verizon, 23 April 2013, http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2013/ p.6\n\n[2] Beech, Hannah, ‘China’s Red Hackers: The Tale of One Patriotic Cyberwarrior’, Time, 21 February 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/02/21/chinas-red-hackers-the-tale-of-one-patriotic-cyberwarrior/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdf52f235ed82d7480f010c23692ebd0",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions require international agreement to be effective\n\nWhen is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures.\n\nThe problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1]\n\n[1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012, https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10714.doc.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f828d54d514563da64f8844333d4e2b4",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions won't work\n\nThe problem with sanctions is that they almost never work so all they do is provide punishment and damage relations without ever resolving the issue. Numerous studies have shown that sanctions don’t actually change the policy of the country that is being sanctioned. [1] Robert Pape suggests that sanctions are only effective in achieving policy change about 5% of the time because states can take substantial economic punishment before they give up on anything that might be considered to be a national interest, and because states are good at shifting the burden of the sanctions onto opposition groups, [2] or else use the sanctions to rally domestic support against the outside actor. [3]\n\nInstead there need to be renewed cooperation on cyber security. Fundamentally as with things like drug smuggling, and people trafficking this is an international problem that needs to be tackled by law enforcement authorities. To that end there needs to be more cooperation not more recriminations. [4]\n\n[1] Lindsay, James M., ‘Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.30, Issue 2, June 1986, pp.153-170, http://www.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/lindsay_86.pdf , p.1 provides a list of some of them\n\n[2] Pape, Robert A., ‘Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work’, International Security, Vol. 22, Issue 2, Autumn 1997, pp.90-137, http://www.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/pape_97%20(jstor).pdf p.106\n\n[3] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991\n\n[4] Dingli, Shen, ‘What Kerry Should Tell China’, Foreign Policy, 11 April 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/what_kerry_should_tell_china\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53aa9c679b8545a8d157f9ba3e581f7f",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions can be targeted\n\nThe big advantage of sanctions is that they can be as finely targeted as needed. If the sanctioning country only knows which country the cyber attack originated from then they can be broad brush sanctions, but if there is knowledge of which group initiated the attack then the sanctions can be more specific. For example in the case of unit 61398 Of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that Mandiant showed has been attacking US companies [1] the United States could target sanctions at the People's Liberation Army by tightening weapons bans. Alternatively if the hackers are private then banning the import of certain computer equipment into that country would be appropriate. If individuals are known then the sanctions can be even more targeted, for example by freezing any bank accounts held outside their own country as the US did against North Korea when it sanctioned Banco Delta Asia through which North Korea laundered money from criminal activities. [2]\n\n[1] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013, http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant_APT1_Report.pdf\n\n[2] Noland, Marcus, ‘Why Sanctions Can Hurt North Korea’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2010, http://www.cfr.org/north-korea/why-sanctions-can-hurt-north-korea/p22762\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91e527b48e98fd07a4001fc27aa113ce",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks\n\nAt the moment the response to cyber-attacks has essentially been nothing. It is however clear that some response is needed as without a reaction there is no deterrence; the attacks will keep coming until something is done. The number of cyber-attacks and the sensitivity of the information stolen have been increasing over recent years and as more and more work is done online and more and more systems are connected to the Internet so cyber-attacks become more attractive. There needs to be a deterrent and the best deterrent is to make sure that such attacks are costly.\n\nAs these attacks are usually cross border (and in this debate we are only concerned with cross border attacks) then the only way to create a cost is through sanctions. These sanctions can either hit the assailant directly or else hit his government so encouraging them to crack down on hacking emanating from their country. It should be remembered that China argues that it does not launch cyber-attacks [1] meaning that any such attacks from China must duly be private. If this is the case then sanctions are the best way of prompting internal law enforcement. Sanctions therefore encourage all nations where there are cyber criminals to make sure they take such cyber-crime seriously. If they do not get their own cyber criminals under control then they may be affected by sanctions.\n\n[1] China Daily, ‘China denies launching cyberattacks on US’, China.org.cn, 20 February 2013, http://www.china.org.cn/world/2013-02/20/content_28003282.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcca00bd668d8498ade1f58d22a6bb62",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions are a proportionate response\n\nCyber-attacks pose a distinct problem for international diplomacy in that they are difficult to prevent and difficult to respond to. Any kind of military response as the United States has threatened would be completely disproportionate against all but the very biggest of cyber-attacks (those that actually result in deaths), [1] diplomacy on the other hand is as good as no response, if the response is simply a tongue lashing then the benefits of cyber espionage will be far higher than the cost.\n\nThe only proportionate, and therefore just, response to a cyber-attack is sanctions. The sanctions can be used to impose a similar economic cost on the offending state as that caused by the cyber-attack. This would be just like the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules. They allow for the imposition of trade sanctions to a similar value to the losses being experienced as a result of protectionist action, with the sanctions sometimes on differing sectors to those where there are unfair trade practices. [2] Alternatively sanctions could mean a proportionate Internet response; users from the offending nation could be prohibited from using Internet services, for example an attack by hackers on the US could result in people from that country being blocked from Google and other US internet services.\n\n[1] Friedman, Benjamin H., Preble, Christopher A., ‘A Military Response to Cyberattacks Is Preposterous’, CATO Institute, 2 June 2011, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/military-response-cyberattacks-is-preposterous\n\n[2] World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes’, 2013, http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4377583a12dd5b2db82a3166f947706",
"text": "defence warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict\n\nCyber conflict favours the offence; when the defender is successful they gain nothing and impose no harm on the attacker who is free to try again elsewhere. The attackers are free to attack until they get past the defences somewhere. [1] That the attacks don’t risk lives helps to encourage an offensive mindset as makes it seem like there is no downside to attempting to dominate your opponent. [2] This means the only cyber response is to attack the attacker so that the same advantages apply.\n\nThe result is that cyber-attacks have a very real danger of long term tension or escalation. If one side is losing a conflict where both sides are attempting to steal the other's intellectual property (or the other has little to steal) the response may be something like the stuxnet attack that involves physical damage, this then would probably be considered an illegal use of force creating a thin line between a cyber-war and a real war. [3] When the cyber war involves physical damage as the US has warned there then may be a military response. Sanctions are a way to apply pressure without this risk of escalation into a military conflict.\n\n[1] Lin, Herbert, ‘Escalation Dynamics and Conflict Termination in Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2012, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/fall/lin.pdf p.51\n\n[2] Rothkopf, David, ‘The Cool War’, Foreign Policy, 20 February 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/20/the_cool_war_china_cyberwar\n\n[3] Zetter, Kim, ‘Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal ‘Act of Force’, Wired, 25 March 2013, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/stuxnet-act-of-force/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
bccdc482d2ca705d8619b89c0300ab69
|
The geographical definition of Europe must be limited and does not include Turkey
There is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something "odd". Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU.
Given that part of Turkey’s territory is on what everyone accepts is the European mainland, why shouldn’t it be allowed to join the main European club? While Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance, and Turkey has a population in Europe of about 14million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. It already belongs to NATO, the OECD and the Council of Europe, and participates in the Eurovision Song Contest and European football competitions. Turkey is a westward-looking country.
|
[
{
"docid": "77422ea22d5166c44f7575ec28d7f1d3",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is not a European country - 95% of the nation’s landmass is on the wrong side of the Hellespont, in Asia. If Turkey is allowed into the European Union, not only would the institution’s very name become nonsensical, but it would be impossible to place a limit upon its potential future expansion. If Gibraltar belonged to Morocco rather than Britain, would we have said yes to Morocco’s application to join the European Union? Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde in 2002 - \"The day after you open negotiations with Turkey, you would have a Moroccan demand (for membership of the union)\" [1] . One could of course then argue that Turkey should not be the only geographically non-European member of the European Union and that Morocco and Armenia would make excellent candidates. But if Morocco, why not Algeria? If Armenia, why not Azerbaijan?\n\nFrench President Nicolas Sarkozy said in January 2007: \"Turkey has no place inside the European Union. I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union. Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept.\" [2] If there is to be a limit then it makes sense that this limit should be at Europe’s geographical borders.\n\n[1] http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000564.html ‘Turkey not part of Europe’ by Randall Parker, 8th November 2002\n\n[2] http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=159133 15th January 2007\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "317e314365abfec0fd8b9a43f439c974",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Turkeys AK party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth-century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have several times elected to government a party with Islamist roots, suspected of wishing to undermine the country’s secular constitution [1] . Turkey is not as moderate a country as it would seem.\n\n[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10288919 ‘Turkey denies break with Europe’, BBC 10th June 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "258304d4b6a2fbd90decb5bdc75ebf6c",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey has a large number of pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights [1] . Police use of torture is widespread against PKK members and sympathisers. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a separate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. Peaceful protestors, including (but not only) those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994 there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country [2] . There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press.\n\nIt is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizou Case [3] . Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession.\n\n[1] https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1511197 Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, 1st October 2009\n\n[2] http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/efb18eb4337a6c768025672b003c3b30?Opendocument United Nations Commission on Human Rights\n\n[3] http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/hof.nsf/e4ca7ef017f8c045c1256849004787f5/f2482d21f5843593c12577c7003642f5?OpenDocument Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, summary Loizuo and others v Turkey\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64053a306d36713d3cb63b18c0ef25fb",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey does not have a stable democracy. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997 [1] . The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of the right of the people to decide for themselves which party best represents their views) - and the increase in votes and influence for conservative Islamic political views paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable to extremism [2] .\n\nTurkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would heavily involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement.\n\n[1] http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508 Map of Freedom in The World: Turkey\n\n[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01tue2.html ‘Secularism and Democracy in Turkey’, Editorial New York Times, 1st May 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae0595b8b185f61d7d6809e5415feb66",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is too big to be safely included within the EU. The Turkish population - estimated at 65.6 million in 2000 - is on current growth trends forecast to rise to 87.3 million by 2025, making it the largest single state in the EU [1] . As population size determines representation and voting strength in the Council of Ministers, and in the European Parliament, Turkey would be able to dominate EU decision-making and set its own agenda, to the disadvantage of existing members.\n\n[1] http://www.planbleu.org/publications/demo_uk_tur.pdf Population projections of countries and their coastal regions: Turkey\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24d5b44638fe7e3b3418e0309ce2d3e9",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined. [1]\n\n[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f0932a56b920cade17243910631a14d",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8af9d85b4b0829889418a0ca82f657e0",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. \"Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of \"peace\" and \"tolerance.\" They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks.\" [1]\n\n[1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-turkey-will-not-be-admitted-to-the-eu.html ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6th December 2005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d877b3e67e4e23edc347d305a565aa68",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). \"Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)\" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.\n\nTurkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.\n\n[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.\n\n[2] http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9c57cf823611a445dad2d1646e0c686",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey would have the largest population of all member states and would therefore hold a disproportionate amount of voting power\n\nTurkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%) [1] , so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives.\n\n[1] http://www.demographia.com/db-eu-pop.htm European Union (EU-15) & Constituent Nation Population from 1950 & Projections to 2050, Demographia, 2001 http://www.demographia.com/db-eu-pop.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "141803258fe330d2e9f3599b76b3d841",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world\n\nTurkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority.\n\nTurkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access.\n\nFurthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia [1] , making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances [2] , and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’.\n\n[1] http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/25/turkey_still_america_s_best_ally_in_the_middle_east ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25th June 2010\n\n[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/09/turkey-erdogan-israel-gaza ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9th June 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a854f8137c5e7a3121a6221cfdb47891",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union\n\nTurkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU.\n\nRegardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e3202420400e0304b236691c4ca8e69",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey has a poor human rights record\n\nTurkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. \"Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts.\" [1]\n\nThe Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned.\" [2]\n\nSurely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.\n\n[1] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004\n\n[2] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72fde75e41f8e2210ebb33d0596349bd",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU\n\nRomania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bba7b5bb16578e68bc6f68866432cea",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism\n\nTurkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. \"Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home.\" [1]\n\n[1] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "999880291990e512cf0107d2702c606d",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population\n\nThe EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423 [1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.\n\nTurkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone [2] . This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.\n\n[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009\n\n[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98ad6046-2584-11e0-8258-00144feab49a.html ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21st Jan 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9ea575fcd21346abbf74c4097487216",
"text": "onal americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join\n\nTurkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union. [1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.\n\n[1] http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30th October 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8341bfb0793d5b66f238a5ccc7dca08d
|
Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small
Iowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to kick off the primary season. It ensures that the opening focus of the campaigns is outside the usual media centers of New York, D.C. and California. This serves to remind political commentators and others that there is an entire country out there.
Equally, because they are relatively small states, campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire allow candidates to set out their positions with greater clarity, in contests that popular consensus regard as highly significant, but which are also small enough not to threaten a nomination bid if lost. Put another way, the wealthy and homogenous nature of New Hampshire and Iowa allows candidate’s campaigning there to focus on making broader statements about the policies and normative projects that they will implement on a national level. Candidates can position themselves, ideologically and politically, without becoming mired in local-level issues or demographic controversies.
Iowa and New Hampshire function as political laboratories – isolated, controlled and equipped to allow close examination of candidates’ fundamental values and proficiencies.
It also gives grassroots candidates a chance to raise their profile and some funds before the costs of contesting the larger states become prohibitive.
Attempts by larger states, notably Florida [i] , to move their primaries forward have been opposed by both parties and many activists.
[i] Patrick O’Connor. Early Florida Primary Would Scramble 2012 Calendar. Wall Street Journal. September 29 2011.
|
[
{
"docid": "7b77e94c760e82b2699b2f73bad43f67",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day The current arrangement means that a handful of small states have a massively disproportionate impact on the primary campaigns. A genuinely national primary would even that out. Grassroots campaigns would also have a reasonable basis for operating on the national stage right up to the event.\n\nStretching the process out ultimately play to the biggest pockets. Unless grassroots candidates get an extraordinary result early, they’re knocked out. Trying to fight their way through several, effectively national campaigns, means that they only really have one chance at the moment.\n\nIt’s only sensible to make that fact reality with a structure that means all candidates are in an all or nothing race rather than a financial endurance test.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d66974791346d8906123c6ae7449fc9e",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day Respecting the interests of the majority in making a decision about a candidate to represent them in a national election is not the worst idea in the world. Equally, the state parties would need to be involved as they play a central role in the general election and it is in the interest of candidates to work with them from the start.\n\nAs things stand at the moment many of the larger states are actually disenfranchised by the same process that allows state parties to portray their role in the primary as valuable and significant. There can be no approach to the current primary election “narrative” that allows the individual states to exert a proportionately fair amount of influence over the other states’ choice of nominee.\n\nCandidates with deep pockets – either their own or somebody else’s - can survive early setbacks. but it means that many candidates who do not win support in the first few states can be ruled out by the end of January. By the time Nebraska comes to make their decision in the middle of May, the issue may long since have been decided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ac92e0af21f4b90fa154a83a25ce786",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day Ultimately the primary campaigns, at least for the main parties, are national campaigns. As a result of more frequent and more intensive media coverage- even during early primaries- candidates have to speak to national issues. Furthermore, Super Tuesday is basically a national primary already, it just happens to exclude some of the states.\n\nThe early primaries simply work to filter out candidates attempting to use the presidential election to promote a single, poorly developed set of maverick views in front of a much larger audience than they would otherwise have access to.\n\nOnly in the event of very close races are the later states left with any meaningful decisions. It would be far more useful to admit that reality and simply hold all national primaries in early February. Contests would still be organised by the state parties (in conjunction with the state authorities where required) and states would still record their vote separately.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "703bf4f238fc3529e3fd52e2f39af763",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day A national primary would disenfranchise large portions of the country, as candidates would be forced to court the support of only the most populous states as they currently do in the general election. At least with the primary system as it stands, candidates have to pay attention to all of the states and all sections within the party.\n\nStaggered primaries create a relationship of interdependence between the nomination campaigns that are run in various states. A poor showing in one state can undermine a candidate’s attempts to make gains in the following state. American political culture is much more fragmentary and heterogonous than European conceptions of the Union might lead us to believe. Each state is sufficiently large that what may seem to be a parochial “local” issue within the context of the entire Union may be of vital importance to a particular state’s voters. The protection and promotion of the politically and cultural plural nature of the states of the Union is a key aspect of the American democratic ideal. It is appropriate, therefore, that blunders in one state’s primary campaign should be open to analysis by the citizens of other states. If a president does not have a commanding understanding of the issues affecting one state, he may be unable to make effective decisions on the rights and affairs of other states.\n\nIt is also worth noting that a single national primary would also be likely to disenfranchise those who do not closely and continuously involve themselves in the political process. Staggered primaries lead major national news services to focus on the local-level issues that may affect turnout and voting in individual states. Staggered primaries allows for reflection on these regional issues. Coverage of this type brings local controversies onto the national stage and fosters cohesion and understanding between the constituent states of one of the largest federal republics in the world. However, a one off election would just deliver national totals and even where this is broken down on a state-by-state basis, there will be much less of an understanding of why certain states supported certain candidates. Only political obsessives will are likely to expend time and effort contextualising and understanding this data; the majority of the population will be less informed than under the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34c3b93878d40ce8c15ae74b17bc67f2",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day A lengthy primary campaign gives candidates time to test each other on a whole range of issues. Voters, in turn, make their decisions based on a balance of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Voters can do this because they have had the time to get to know the candidates well, to become familiar with their policies and positions on various issues and to analyse their professional or political backgrounds.\n\nAdmittedly the experience of getting to know- and be known by- the country is an expensive one. However, Barack Obama’s reliance on small, personal donations demonstrates that this situation need not benefit any particular sectional interest.\n\nSide opposition contend that Obama’s grass roots funding model provides a viable alternative to reliance on large donation from powerful donors. Moreover, it also serves to expand and foster public engagement in the political process.\n\nThere is also little reason to suspect that the resolution would do much to reduce expenditure on campaigns. Indeed, eliminating state-level campaigning may simply mean that candidates are forced to become more reliant on communications delivered via national media, which is both more expensive and provides fewer opportunities to address state-level issues.\n\nFinally, it should also be noted that spending in primary campaigns is already subject to a significant external control. The need to fund a full presidential election campaign will always serve to limit and moderate candidate’s ambitions, and to impose a degree of equality between wealthier candidates and those who are more reliant on grass-roots support.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0af3389d68c3b9b1a4327caa12ebe51d",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America’s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself.\n\nMoving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media. Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to ‘safe’ candidates.\n\nHowever, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions – for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows “outsiders” and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters.\n\nStaggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ec78d44e28430b47429ca5acb78a2c5",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level\n\nThe primaries as they stand make an important statement not only about party structure, but also about national identity – a federation of states each with a full right to their time in the sun.\n\nThis is not misty-eyed nostalgia, but a simple reflection of the realities of the constitution. The balance of the rights of states, as well as a respect for the views of the majority, is reflected in the process of an extended primary campaign that assumes all states to be equal. A final decision made at a national convention acknowledges that the views of the different and distinct populations of the states of the union have been weighed against each other.\n\nThe current structure of presidential primaries ensures that the separate states of the Union are fully engaged in the selection process, irrespective of the balance of political power or the nature of that state’s political culture. The status quo gives an invaluable opportunity to, say, Texan Democrats or Republicans in Vermont to have a meaningful say in the overall outcome [d1] of the election. Even though Texas consistently supports republican candidates and Vermont Democrat, members of the minority party in both states are able to pass judgment on the candidates they consider would best serve their interests if elected. The results encourage activism and engagement at a local level and are, ultimately, good for democracy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6442b1c54129036746022dd6f401099d",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day States’ rights\n\nQuite apart from the politically controversial contents of the phrase, states’ rights describes a vital and highly relevant aspect of the relationship between the individual states of the Union and the central government.\n\nThe powers held by the federal government to control and trammel the conduct of the states of the union, and to act on their behalf on issues of foreign policy is to be contrasted with states’ freedom to produce their own laws and legislation on certain issues. The debate on the areas of civil life in which a state retains authority to formulate its own laws, without interference by the federal government, remains controversial, but it can be useful in clarifying the nature of the federal bond that holds the states of the Union together.\n\nPolitical culture in the United States is characterised, not only by a patriotic attachment to the idea of the federal republic, but also to the states that individual citizens inhabit. As noted above, the cultural, religious and economic tropes of each state are highly distinctive. This attachment extends to party politics as well. Political parties within the US are based much more on a consensual, community driven interpretation of political dialog than European parties. Although fund raising and promotion activities of both the Republican and Democratic parties is organised by a central committee, these committees have little influence over the policy goals and ideological position of individual candidates.\n\nPolitical parties in each state view the process of electing a president from a deeply local perspective. The legitimacy and popularity of state primaries is largely a function of each primary’s position within the wider narrative of American politics.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33774fed338caf660304567e9eb35ec",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations\n\nThe minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans [i] .\n\nThere have been a number of solutions proposed to this, including the rotation of first primaries around the country. However, all this does is replicate the problem in new and imaginative ways; every state will have its own demographic abnormalities. Questions of educational aspiration and social mobility among black voters in South Carolina cannot be compared to the debates surrounding community integration and immigration in Arizona.\n\nThe only way to take a vote that is representative of the nation as a whole is to ballot the nation as a whole. Internationally the model followed is for selection of a candidate by postal ballot, demonstrating that mature democracies are entirely capable of selecting national candidates without such a protracted process.\n\nThe whole purpose of the resolution is to eliminate or control for statistical and demographic inequalities that may give certain candidates an advantage unrelated to the popularity of their policies. A national primary would apply this principle but within the context of the American model of party affiliation.\n\n[i] Kopicki, Allison, 'Iowa and New Hampshire Stand Apart', The Caucus, The New York Times, 7 December 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "390dfc12484e72e6263a8f19160d6f49",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns\n\nImmense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible.\n\nA single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aea1402cd666cc2fe621e41516e3235",
"text": "leadership voting house would hold all us presidential primaries same day The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states\n\nAs most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority.\n\nIn 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be.\n\nThe current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates.\n\nThe primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines.\n\nA final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5f1130e7bf737727111f80754ef2cc9f
|
As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system.
The United States spends approximately $700 trillion annually on its military; China, the world’s second largest military spender, spends $114 trillion. [1] The US outpaces other possible peacekeepers by such a large gap that these other powers have little incentive to even try to keep up. Unilateral US intervention undermines international actors such as UN troops because it communicates the US’s refusal to submit to the interests of the international community. Thus US military intervention becomes a “quick fix” which prevents genuine long-term stability
[1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.
|
[
{
"docid": "a42da1a282abea77e93c9a1cca7a86d7",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Pro’s perspective is backwards; as long as other nations do not move towards providing viable alternatives to US military dominance, the US cannot afford to reduce its own defenses. The US should not have to provide an incentive for other nations to improve their defense systems; their own self-preservation should be a sufficient incentive. In June 2011, then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that European NATO members’ reluctance to fund their share of NATO operations could be negative impacts for the alliance’s future. The New York Times related Gates’ words; “[Gates] warned of a ‘dim if not dismal future’ for the alliance unless its European members increased their participation, and he said that Washington would not forever pay for European security when the Europeans could do that for themselves.” [1] The US may be able to alter its role to be less unilateral, but it cannot do so until after other military entities improve their defense systems.\n\n[1] Erlanger.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b43f7b118ca98f3d4a8fc7d4be64362",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Opposition acknowledges that the US government’s obligation to act in its own nation’s best interest reflects a flaw in the US’s international role. However, this flaw is outweighed by the benefits of US protection. First, other countries can use soft power to prevent the US from abusing its military power. In 2010, US exports exceeded $1.8 trillion and imports exceeded $2.3 trillion; international trade accounted for 14% of US GDP. [1] The US is vulnerable to economic sanctions. Furthermore, the US enjoys the position it holds in international relations; were it to lose respect and bargaining power in the international community, Americans would strongly question the wisdom of government decisions. Furthermore, Americans are strongly attached to an ideal of American morality. This ideal places a check on the nation’s willingness to engage in foreign combat without any moral justification. Thus there are checks in place to keep the US from acting only in self-interest.\n\n[1] William Baumol and Alan Blinder, Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy 12th Edition, (Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning), 2011, 23.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5707b10863551c6f42154df92868fb9b",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. All would simply lead to more strife; dominance by another, probably less peaceful power, no dominance at all leading to anarchy or a balance of power, which usually leads to war as in the 18th Century. All of these options would create considerably more conflict than there is at the moment.(See Opposition argument)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e67b55a3b566c8689f34b0fc017966f",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Pro only identifies US military failures; there are also many occasions of US military success. The Opposition case details examples of military success in Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia. The recent success of Libyan rebel attempts to overthrow Gaddafi is partially attributable to US military assistance. [1] Furthermore, US military strategy is constantly changing and adapting. The rules of international engagement change relatively quickly; when the rise of the Soviet threat rendered isolationism impossible, the US adapted its foreign policy to a bipolar world in which mutually assured destruction was an effective means of preventing direct conflict. The fall of the USSR created a multi-polar world in which MAD became a more complex and less reliable strategy. Today, the US is adjusting to the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. These constant changes render perfect implementation of military force impossible- this impossibility is not unique to the US. But with constant reevaluation and assistance from the international community, the US can be a reasonably effective peacekeeper.\n\n[1] Steven Erlanger, “Panetta Urges Europe to Spend More on NATO or Risk a Hollowed-Out Alliance,” New York Times, October 5, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e9c12505cfe47ad25ffa28d3eceabbd",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community.\n\nAs is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors attaining weapons of mass destruction. This is problematic because irrational actors do not necessarily have a sense of self-preservation, and thus cannot be deterred by threats of mass retaliation. Thus if such an actor attains nuclear weapons, there is little that can stop them from using such weapons. Non-state actors are problematic because governments do not know with whom they are negotiating or where/how to find them. Thus the US is justified in intervening in such conflicts as a means of self-preservation.\n\nThe Pro’s argument is based on a theory of sovereignty that is already violated in most of the conflicts in which the US interferes.\n\nThe Pro’s argument is based on the notion that the proper agent to act on behalf of a group of people is a legitimate government that has earned the right to sovereignty. The Opposition does not dispute this theory. However, many of the conflicts in which the US intervenes involve abusive governments or invading nations that violate human rights on massive scales. The people that the US seeks to protect often do not have a legitimate government to represent their interests. US protection may not be the ideal means of protecting global human rights, but it is better than not protecting them at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1a2b802d2cac7c427796b8e58a79a9c",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The variety of checks upon the US military may prevent it from total global domination, but these checks are not sufficient to make the US a genuinely altruistic actor. The US justifies intervention on the grounds of promoting democracy, but selectively intervenes. The US has supported non-democratic regimes in Chile and Iran, [1] and Guatemala, and has relatively close relations with Saudi Arabia. The US rarely criticizes the Israeli government for expanding settlements, while at the same time providing support to rebel forces in Libya. The Pro does not contend that the US is a completely amoral actor. However, ideologically inconsistent foreign policy demonstrates that the US is willing to prioritize its own interests over the rights of other nations’ citizens. Thus the US is not an appropriate entity to protect global human rights or international stability.\n\n[1] James Risen, “Secrets of History: the C.I.A. in Iran,” New York Times, 2000.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dca35c58c122c66334273083611da54e",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. There are alternatives –while some may contend they will be worse we do not know that this is the case. The United States would remain dominant but it would not need to use its military power in the overbearing way that it does now but rather in a much more constructive way that relies on diplomacy rather than military force. (See proposition argument)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12bda0204146e50714a816415f43116e",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power Brute force is not sufficient to maintain global security. Just as one cannot simply strike a stone repeatedly and expect to replicate Michelangelo’s David, one cannot simply produce more tanks and train more soldiers and expect to resolve the complex problems that create modern global threats. The US has failed to establish a stable and safe environment in Iraq and Afghanistan despite almost 10 years of occupation. The Pro’s arguments point to failed or misguided intervention in Vietnam, Chile, Somalia, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, and Haiti. These examples demonstrate that the US is not receiving much benefit from the vast resources it puts into its military. The US is only one country, and thus does not have the capability to view global conflicts from an international perspective. The world would be better served by greater investment in international military entities, such as NATO or UN peacekeepers. An international response to global conflict has greater perceived legitimacy than a unilateral response by one nation; perceived legitimacy reduces backlash from groups that feel victimized. Thus US military intervention is not a very effective means of attaining sustainable peace.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f770d763eda3e26cc9e9ba3c134392",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Opposition correctly identifies the threat, which is nuclear war. However, hegemonic US military power is not the solution to this threat. The first nuclear arms race began during the Cold War; because neither the US nor the USSR wanted the other to have the upper hand in nuclear capacity, each produced enough weapons to destroy the entire world. In the 1970s, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto argued that “the Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb, the Hindus have the bomb, why not Islam?” [1] As the US continues to increase its military strength, other nations that are not sure they can rely on the US as an ally feel compelled to increase their strength in response. This leads to a perpetual armaments race. Armaments races are a waste of resources that would be better spent on civil services, and create widespread paranoia that the other country may attack at any time. Furthermore, continuously increasing military capacity is not an effective way of combating non-state actors. Terrorist groups operate underground; because they are difficult to detect, they are most effectively addressed through community engagement with government security. Thus excessive military development puts the US and other nations at risk without effectively addressing security threats.\n\n[1] Sijo Joseph Ponnatt, “The Normative Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal on World Peace, March 1, 2006. [ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-152972617.html]\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "641300178000410e326e6fbbc7d48e30",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The US government’s obligation to its own people is mutually exclusive to acting on behalf of the international community.\n\nA government derives its sovereignty from a social contract with its citizens. Citizens surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for government protection; if a government does not serve its people’s best interests, it is not legitimate. Thus in any situation where the interests of the American public are not aligned with those of the global population, the US military cannot serve the international community without failing to meet its obligation to its own citizenry. Because the American public has the ability to oust a leader that does not promote their interests, the military is much more likely to choose the option of serving American interests. This may not be unreasonable behavior, but it is indicative of the need for other entities- either other nations or international organizations- to have comparable military power to that of the United States.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98b290613f618bc45045ba22934f558f",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability.\n\nThe US military makes problems worse just as often as it makes them better. The US intervened in Vietnam on the grounds of protecting the free world from communism; over 58,000 American soldiers and approximately 2 million Vietnamese civilians were killed while the US failed to subdue the Vietcong. The United States provided covert support to Augusto Pinochet after his military coup d’etat over Chile’s democratically elected government under Salvadore Allende because the US feared Allende, a socialist, would promote communism. [1] , [2] Today, Pinochet is remembered as a bloody dictator that ruled through terror for 17 years. US intervention in Somalia in 1992-94 resulted in little more than the loss of American lives. [3] The US experienced similarly negatively results during its intervention in Beirut (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), and Haiti (1994). [4] More recently, the US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly ten years without brining long-term stability to the region. The United States military needs to step down from its self-assumed role as world police officer because it is not effective and its failed attempts lead to huge civilian casualties.\n\n[1] Reel and Smith.\n\n[2] “Covert Action in Chile,” U.S. Department of State, December 19, 1975.\n\n[3] Richard W. Stewart, “The United States Army in Somalia: 1992-1994,” U.S. Army Center of Military History.\n\n[4] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce5432edff762155e872b19ec7450213",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation.\n\nThe U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions. [1] The US government has authority over its own citizens, and it is justified in engaging in war if its citizens are under direct threat. However, citizens of other nations have no means of expressing their opinion in the US government. If the US government abuses its power, these people have no reliable legal means of recourse. Consequently, the US government has no authority to intervene in their affairs.\n\n[1] “Country Comparison: Population,” The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9dbde8c9b5063726d63e7f5238e8f6",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world.\n\nWestern domination is not the answer to political conflict; it is the cause of many predicaments that result in the violation of human rights in countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East today. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, wrote in his 2005 book, Imperial Hubris, that “[Bin Laden] could not have his current- and increasing- level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are Bin Laden’s only indispensable allies.” [1] The United States’ unwavering support for Israel and its dubious grounds for invading Iraq are further source of anger in the Arab world. [2] The US justifies its military dominance by arguing that terrorist groups pose a serious threat to American society, and then this military dominance increases support for such terrorist groups. America cannot act as the world police because such a system will never lead to peace.\n\n[1] Scheuer, iii.\n\n[2] Ibid.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e544bea1bb95d9e0e3112e72d6b741b8",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens.\n\nIn a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy all of humanity- even in the case of a limited conflict. Alexis Madrigal of Wired Science explains, “Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities […] Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.” [1] Thus it is impossible for the US to turn a blind eye to conflicts and instability in other regions. Furthermore, the stakes of nuclear fallout are so high that very few chances can be taken. Even if the chance of a conflict ending in nuclear war is very small, the damages that would occur are so great that even small chances cannot be taken. Thus the US military is justified in intervening in international conflicts because such intervention can be decisively linked to the welfare of its citizens.\n\n[1] Madrigal.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dfa54a06baf36acadb1e6764ea8fa84",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance.\n\nThe 2011 Libyan revolution demonstrates the world’s dependence on US military support. Although NATO unanimously agreed to intervene in the revolution, less than half participated, and even fewer actually conducted airstrikes. In August 2011, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the Wall Street Journal “The fact is that Europe couldn’t have done this on its own […] the lack of defense investment will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to take on responsibility for international crisis management beyond Europe’s borders.” [1] Other prosperous nations criticize the US on the grounds that it needs to share military power, but these nations are not actually willing to increase their own involvement in order to share responsibility. The second largest military in the world belongs to China; because China is an emerging power, the international community cannot be sure how they will wield this power. Until US allies increase their military participation so that there are viable alternatives to US military involvement, the US cannot safely step down from its active military role.\n\n[1] Filer and MacDonald.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b91bc52a3dc54a3dbb2bee12a7f61f06",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States has several qualities that allow it to act honorably on behalf of the international community.\n\nIt is essential that there is some agent in the international community that is able to step into situations that threaten global security, such as a collapsed government in a state with nuclear capacity. The US is an appropriate agent because its internal checks prevent it from abusing its military capacity. First, the US government contains a system of checks and balances that prevent an individual corrupt leader from going to war. Second, the US is a democracy; few civilians are eager to send their sons off to die in unnecessary wars. Thus political leaders must fear repercussions for engaging in excessive conflict. Third, the US is a relatively open economy; it is not unimpressionable to external influence. The Opposition does not contend that everything the US military does is perfect. However, the myriad of checks listed above ensures that excessive use of US military force will not go unchallenged, either domestically or internationally.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e09e72124dd95a3c9fb0cbaa945ee20c",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States has greater military capacity than any other entity in the world.\n\nThe US accounts for 43% of global expenditures on military. [1] The US has greater capacity to prevent global security threats than any other entity. Furthermore, the US has used limited military intervention successfully in the recent past. In 1989, the US sent 27,000 troops to Panama to protect the lives of 35,000 Americans in Panama and to protect Panama’s own citizens. The invasion led to the removal of the dictatorial leader Manuel Noriega and the implementation of an elected government. [2] In the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the US successfully forced Iraqi troops to retreat from Kuwait. [3] In 1995 the US used limited military tactics to protect civilians in Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb forces, leading to a peace agreement between the warring parties. [4] The Opposition does not contend that every US military intervention is or will be successful, or that military intervention is all that is necessary in addressing conflicts. The Opposition also promotes constant reevaluation of military tactics so that past tragedies are not repeated. But despite its drawbacks, US military intervention has the potential to be a source of stability and protection in the modern world from nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and other large-scale violations of human rights.\n\n[1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.\n\n[2] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline.\n\n[3] Ibid.\n\n[4] Ibid.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
42ae906dd9cadb61d5609847d80dd8bb
|
There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance.
The 2011 Libyan revolution demonstrates the world’s dependence on US military support. Although NATO unanimously agreed to intervene in the revolution, less than half participated, and even fewer actually conducted airstrikes. In August 2011, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the Wall Street Journal “The fact is that Europe couldn’t have done this on its own […] the lack of defense investment will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to take on responsibility for international crisis management beyond Europe’s borders.” [1] Other prosperous nations criticize the US on the grounds that it needs to share military power, but these nations are not actually willing to increase their own involvement in order to share responsibility. The second largest military in the world belongs to China; because China is an emerging power, the international community cannot be sure how they will wield this power. Until US allies increase their military participation so that there are viable alternatives to US military involvement, the US cannot safely step down from its active military role.
[1] Filer and MacDonald.
|
[
{
"docid": "dca35c58c122c66334273083611da54e",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. There are alternatives –while some may contend they will be worse we do not know that this is the case. The United States would remain dominant but it would not need to use its military power in the overbearing way that it does now but rather in a much more constructive way that relies on diplomacy rather than military force. (See proposition argument)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c1a2b802d2cac7c427796b8e58a79a9c",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The variety of checks upon the US military may prevent it from total global domination, but these checks are not sufficient to make the US a genuinely altruistic actor. The US justifies intervention on the grounds of promoting democracy, but selectively intervenes. The US has supported non-democratic regimes in Chile and Iran, [1] and Guatemala, and has relatively close relations with Saudi Arabia. The US rarely criticizes the Israeli government for expanding settlements, while at the same time providing support to rebel forces in Libya. The Pro does not contend that the US is a completely amoral actor. However, ideologically inconsistent foreign policy demonstrates that the US is willing to prioritize its own interests over the rights of other nations’ citizens. Thus the US is not an appropriate entity to protect global human rights or international stability.\n\n[1] James Risen, “Secrets of History: the C.I.A. in Iran,” New York Times, 2000.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12bda0204146e50714a816415f43116e",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power Brute force is not sufficient to maintain global security. Just as one cannot simply strike a stone repeatedly and expect to replicate Michelangelo’s David, one cannot simply produce more tanks and train more soldiers and expect to resolve the complex problems that create modern global threats. The US has failed to establish a stable and safe environment in Iraq and Afghanistan despite almost 10 years of occupation. The Pro’s arguments point to failed or misguided intervention in Vietnam, Chile, Somalia, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, and Haiti. These examples demonstrate that the US is not receiving much benefit from the vast resources it puts into its military. The US is only one country, and thus does not have the capability to view global conflicts from an international perspective. The world would be better served by greater investment in international military entities, such as NATO or UN peacekeepers. An international response to global conflict has greater perceived legitimacy than a unilateral response by one nation; perceived legitimacy reduces backlash from groups that feel victimized. Thus US military intervention is not a very effective means of attaining sustainable peace.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f770d763eda3e26cc9e9ba3c134392",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Opposition correctly identifies the threat, which is nuclear war. However, hegemonic US military power is not the solution to this threat. The first nuclear arms race began during the Cold War; because neither the US nor the USSR wanted the other to have the upper hand in nuclear capacity, each produced enough weapons to destroy the entire world. In the 1970s, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto argued that “the Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb, the Hindus have the bomb, why not Islam?” [1] As the US continues to increase its military strength, other nations that are not sure they can rely on the US as an ally feel compelled to increase their strength in response. This leads to a perpetual armaments race. Armaments races are a waste of resources that would be better spent on civil services, and create widespread paranoia that the other country may attack at any time. Furthermore, continuously increasing military capacity is not an effective way of combating non-state actors. Terrorist groups operate underground; because they are difficult to detect, they are most effectively addressed through community engagement with government security. Thus excessive military development puts the US and other nations at risk without effectively addressing security threats.\n\n[1] Sijo Joseph Ponnatt, “The Normative Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal on World Peace, March 1, 2006. [ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-152972617.html]\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b43f7b118ca98f3d4a8fc7d4be64362",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Opposition acknowledges that the US government’s obligation to act in its own nation’s best interest reflects a flaw in the US’s international role. However, this flaw is outweighed by the benefits of US protection. First, other countries can use soft power to prevent the US from abusing its military power. In 2010, US exports exceeded $1.8 trillion and imports exceeded $2.3 trillion; international trade accounted for 14% of US GDP. [1] The US is vulnerable to economic sanctions. Furthermore, the US enjoys the position it holds in international relations; were it to lose respect and bargaining power in the international community, Americans would strongly question the wisdom of government decisions. Furthermore, Americans are strongly attached to an ideal of American morality. This ideal places a check on the nation’s willingness to engage in foreign combat without any moral justification. Thus there are checks in place to keep the US from acting only in self-interest.\n\n[1] William Baumol and Alan Blinder, Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy 12th Edition, (Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning), 2011, 23.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a42da1a282abea77e93c9a1cca7a86d7",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Pro’s perspective is backwards; as long as other nations do not move towards providing viable alternatives to US military dominance, the US cannot afford to reduce its own defenses. The US should not have to provide an incentive for other nations to improve their defense systems; their own self-preservation should be a sufficient incentive. In June 2011, then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that European NATO members’ reluctance to fund their share of NATO operations could be negative impacts for the alliance’s future. The New York Times related Gates’ words; “[Gates] warned of a ‘dim if not dismal future’ for the alliance unless its European members increased their participation, and he said that Washington would not forever pay for European security when the Europeans could do that for themselves.” [1] The US may be able to alter its role to be less unilateral, but it cannot do so until after other military entities improve their defense systems.\n\n[1] Erlanger.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5707b10863551c6f42154df92868fb9b",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. All would simply lead to more strife; dominance by another, probably less peaceful power, no dominance at all leading to anarchy or a balance of power, which usually leads to war as in the 18th Century. All of these options would create considerably more conflict than there is at the moment.(See Opposition argument)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e67b55a3b566c8689f34b0fc017966f",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The Pro only identifies US military failures; there are also many occasions of US military success. The Opposition case details examples of military success in Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia. The recent success of Libyan rebel attempts to overthrow Gaddafi is partially attributable to US military assistance. [1] Furthermore, US military strategy is constantly changing and adapting. The rules of international engagement change relatively quickly; when the rise of the Soviet threat rendered isolationism impossible, the US adapted its foreign policy to a bipolar world in which mutually assured destruction was an effective means of preventing direct conflict. The fall of the USSR created a multi-polar world in which MAD became a more complex and less reliable strategy. Today, the US is adjusting to the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. These constant changes render perfect implementation of military force impossible- this impossibility is not unique to the US. But with constant reevaluation and assistance from the international community, the US can be a reasonably effective peacekeeper.\n\n[1] Steven Erlanger, “Panetta Urges Europe to Spend More on NATO or Risk a Hollowed-Out Alliance,” New York Times, October 5, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e9c12505cfe47ad25ffa28d3eceabbd",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community.\n\nAs is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors attaining weapons of mass destruction. This is problematic because irrational actors do not necessarily have a sense of self-preservation, and thus cannot be deterred by threats of mass retaliation. Thus if such an actor attains nuclear weapons, there is little that can stop them from using such weapons. Non-state actors are problematic because governments do not know with whom they are negotiating or where/how to find them. Thus the US is justified in intervening in such conflicts as a means of self-preservation.\n\nThe Pro’s argument is based on a theory of sovereignty that is already violated in most of the conflicts in which the US interferes.\n\nThe Pro’s argument is based on the notion that the proper agent to act on behalf of a group of people is a legitimate government that has earned the right to sovereignty. The Opposition does not dispute this theory. However, many of the conflicts in which the US intervenes involve abusive governments or invading nations that violate human rights on massive scales. The people that the US seeks to protect often do not have a legitimate government to represent their interests. US protection may not be the ideal means of protecting global human rights, but it is better than not protecting them at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e544bea1bb95d9e0e3112e72d6b741b8",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens.\n\nIn a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy all of humanity- even in the case of a limited conflict. Alexis Madrigal of Wired Science explains, “Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities […] Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.” [1] Thus it is impossible for the US to turn a blind eye to conflicts and instability in other regions. Furthermore, the stakes of nuclear fallout are so high that very few chances can be taken. Even if the chance of a conflict ending in nuclear war is very small, the damages that would occur are so great that even small chances cannot be taken. Thus the US military is justified in intervening in international conflicts because such intervention can be decisively linked to the welfare of its citizens.\n\n[1] Madrigal.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b91bc52a3dc54a3dbb2bee12a7f61f06",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States has several qualities that allow it to act honorably on behalf of the international community.\n\nIt is essential that there is some agent in the international community that is able to step into situations that threaten global security, such as a collapsed government in a state with nuclear capacity. The US is an appropriate agent because its internal checks prevent it from abusing its military capacity. First, the US government contains a system of checks and balances that prevent an individual corrupt leader from going to war. Second, the US is a democracy; few civilians are eager to send their sons off to die in unnecessary wars. Thus political leaders must fear repercussions for engaging in excessive conflict. Third, the US is a relatively open economy; it is not unimpressionable to external influence. The Opposition does not contend that everything the US military does is perfect. However, the myriad of checks listed above ensures that excessive use of US military force will not go unchallenged, either domestically or internationally.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e09e72124dd95a3c9fb0cbaa945ee20c",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States has greater military capacity than any other entity in the world.\n\nThe US accounts for 43% of global expenditures on military. [1] The US has greater capacity to prevent global security threats than any other entity. Furthermore, the US has used limited military intervention successfully in the recent past. In 1989, the US sent 27,000 troops to Panama to protect the lives of 35,000 Americans in Panama and to protect Panama’s own citizens. The invasion led to the removal of the dictatorial leader Manuel Noriega and the implementation of an elected government. [2] In the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the US successfully forced Iraqi troops to retreat from Kuwait. [3] In 1995 the US used limited military tactics to protect civilians in Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb forces, leading to a peace agreement between the warring parties. [4] The Opposition does not contend that every US military intervention is or will be successful, or that military intervention is all that is necessary in addressing conflicts. The Opposition also promotes constant reevaluation of military tactics so that past tragedies are not repeated. But despite its drawbacks, US military intervention has the potential to be a source of stability and protection in the modern world from nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and other large-scale violations of human rights.\n\n[1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.\n\n[2] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline.\n\n[3] Ibid.\n\n[4] Ibid.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "641300178000410e326e6fbbc7d48e30",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The US government’s obligation to its own people is mutually exclusive to acting on behalf of the international community.\n\nA government derives its sovereignty from a social contract with its citizens. Citizens surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for government protection; if a government does not serve its people’s best interests, it is not legitimate. Thus in any situation where the interests of the American public are not aligned with those of the global population, the US military cannot serve the international community without failing to meet its obligation to its own citizenry. Because the American public has the ability to oust a leader that does not promote their interests, the military is much more likely to choose the option of serving American interests. This may not be unreasonable behavior, but it is indicative of the need for other entities- either other nations or international organizations- to have comparable military power to that of the United States.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b387fa9bb2045b6cfcf3a242c6f7083b",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system.\n\nThe United States spends approximately $700 trillion annually on its military; China, the world’s second largest military spender, spends $114 trillion. [1] The US outpaces other possible peacekeepers by such a large gap that these other powers have little incentive to even try to keep up. Unilateral US intervention undermines international actors such as UN troops because it communicates the US’s refusal to submit to the interests of the international community. Thus US military intervention becomes a “quick fix” which prevents genuine long-term stability\n\n[1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98b290613f618bc45045ba22934f558f",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability.\n\nThe US military makes problems worse just as often as it makes them better. The US intervened in Vietnam on the grounds of protecting the free world from communism; over 58,000 American soldiers and approximately 2 million Vietnamese civilians were killed while the US failed to subdue the Vietcong. The United States provided covert support to Augusto Pinochet after his military coup d’etat over Chile’s democratically elected government under Salvadore Allende because the US feared Allende, a socialist, would promote communism. [1] , [2] Today, Pinochet is remembered as a bloody dictator that ruled through terror for 17 years. US intervention in Somalia in 1992-94 resulted in little more than the loss of American lives. [3] The US experienced similarly negatively results during its intervention in Beirut (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), and Haiti (1994). [4] More recently, the US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly ten years without brining long-term stability to the region. The United States military needs to step down from its self-assumed role as world police officer because it is not effective and its failed attempts lead to huge civilian casualties.\n\n[1] Reel and Smith.\n\n[2] “Covert Action in Chile,” U.S. Department of State, December 19, 1975.\n\n[3] Richard W. Stewart, “The United States Army in Somalia: 1992-1994,” U.S. Army Center of Military History.\n\n[4] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce5432edff762155e872b19ec7450213",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation.\n\nThe U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions. [1] The US government has authority over its own citizens, and it is justified in engaging in war if its citizens are under direct threat. However, citizens of other nations have no means of expressing their opinion in the US government. If the US government abuses its power, these people have no reliable legal means of recourse. Consequently, the US government has no authority to intervene in their affairs.\n\n[1] “Country Comparison: Population,” The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9dbde8c9b5063726d63e7f5238e8f6",
"text": "onal americas global politics warpeace house opposes us hegemonic military power US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world.\n\nWestern domination is not the answer to political conflict; it is the cause of many predicaments that result in the violation of human rights in countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East today. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, wrote in his 2005 book, Imperial Hubris, that “[Bin Laden] could not have his current- and increasing- level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are Bin Laden’s only indispensable allies.” [1] The United States’ unwavering support for Israel and its dubious grounds for invading Iraq are further source of anger in the Arab world. [2] The US justifies its military dominance by arguing that terrorist groups pose a serious threat to American society, and then this military dominance increases support for such terrorist groups. America cannot act as the world police because such a system will never lead to peace.\n\n[1] Scheuer, iii.\n\n[2] Ibid.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ebf55b57ff2579a9f7fdef9686f77650
|
The 'Middle Way' has international support
The USA, the most powerful nation in the world, has been vocal in its support for the 'Middle Way' strategy. Concurrently, the US has not given any indication that it would support complete Tibetan independence – nor is it likely to. America is unlikely to jeopardise trade relations with China over the Tibetan issue by giving political legitimacy to those advocating complete independence. [1]
The European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament have also both passed motions advocating for the 'Middle Way' as a solution in Tibet. [2] [3] Such international support for the 'Middle Way' should be compared to the fact that no country in the world has ever recognised Tibetan independence. [4]
Only the involvement of international actors and inter-governmental organisations can guarantee that Tibet and China will be able to attain a peaceful and equitable equilibrium with each other. International support means that the international community would accept any change when it occurs and gives China a further incentive to negotiate for some form of the ‘Middle Way’ as it would positively benefit its international relations.
[1] Valdes, Manuel. “Dalai Lama to begin 6-day U.S. visit in Seattle to discuss compassion amid turmoil in Tibet”. Associated Press. 10 April 2008. http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080410-0236-dalailama.html
[2] TibetCustom. “European Parliament Discusses Current Situation of Tibet”. TibetCustom. 26 March 2010. http://www.tibetcustom.com/article.php/20100326083417443
[3] Australia Tibet Council. “Sino-Tibetan Dialogue Presented to Scottish Parliament”. Australia Tibet Council. 2011. http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/263/91/
[4] The Economist. “Britain's suzerain remedy”. The Economist. 6 November 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12570571?story_id=12570571
|
[
{
"docid": "514f848c63d37a1485f7f741baec7118",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The opinions of foreign governments and the international community have frequently failed to have any real impact upon the situation 'on the ground' in Tibet. For example, The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese 'aggression' and 'invasion' of Tibet in 1950, however the Chinese exerted their authority there anyway. [1] The international community will therefore acquiesce with whatever is decided between Tibet and China – they will applaud any deal or condemn any repression but this will not affect the positions of either side. Rather, what matters is what the Tibetan population support, and there is good reason to believe that the 'Middle Way' does not satisfy them. Many younger Tibetans would prefer that the Dalai Lama push for total independence, an regret that he did not pursue a more confrontational path with China over the 2008 Olympics. [2]\n\n[1] The Office of Tibet, New York. “Historical Overview”. The Office of Tibet, New York. http://tibetoffice.org/tibet-info/historical-overview\n\n[2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582113/Tibetans-criticise-Dal...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "067ad2be042af9ede74bebe805fc97ec",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet China's supposed strategic interests in Tibet are also why the promised autonomy under the 'Middle Way' will never truly emerge. If China's need to hold onto Tibet is really so important as made out, China will always need to keep tight control over all happenings in Tibet so as to further guarantee its security. This of course assumes China really does have vital strategic interests in controlling Tibet (as the Chinese Government claims, and as is argued opposite), however it is not entirely clear exactly what these strategic interests are. The 'Middle Way' is just a smokescreen for perpetuating the predominance of China's security interests as the most important issue in Tibet. Thus, if China does have vital strategic interests in Tibet, it will never allow it true autonomy (and so the Middle Way is hopeless), and if it has no vital strategic interests in controlling Tibet then Chinese rule there is unjustified -and independence, not the ‘Middle Way’ should be adopted.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "430d83f5887798d7175e2d0c50822c87",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The 'Middle Way' is no different from the current situation. Although, theoretically, the 'Middle Way' proposition offers the Chinese authorities and ordinary Tibetans a way to harmonise their conflicting interests, it is practically no different from the political accommodation that Tibet currently subscribes to. Under the ‘Middle Way’, the Dalai Lama has expressed willingness to accept socialist rule in Tibet. He has also dropped former Tibetan demands that their homeland be offered a political relationship as expansive as China’s offer in the early-1980s to Taiwan in favour of an insistence on a Hong Kong-style ‘association’ relationship with Beijing. Since the early 2000s, in keeping with the ‘Middle Way’, his hints about a residual international personality have been kept to a minimum. Further, the autonomy arrangement sought is an amalgam of the Hong Kong ‘one country, two systems’ formula and the existing autonomy provisions of the PRC Constitution. [1] This gradual dropping of Tibetan demands under the name of the ‘Middle Way’ means that it offers little improvement from the status quo.\n\nThe background in terms of political events that led to a proposition of a \"Middle Way\" sheds more light into the fact that his strategy is just a new name on the board for the same as the provisions currently existing within the PRC constitution. [2] If the PRC sees that the ‘middle way’ is slowly reducing the demands for more freedom for Tibet then they are unlikely to embrace it as they can equally wait for more concessions. Despite all these concessions to the PRC position there are still things that China will never accept such as any idea that Tibet will be transformed into a ‘zone of peace and non-violence’ or that there should be a popularly elected legislature – it would inevitably mean others in China would believe they should have more democracy. By giving away so many concessions before negotiations but still making it impossible for the PRC to accept the Dalai Lama makes it unlikely that his middle way will get anywhere in negotiations so it is not really ‘realistic’.\n\n[1] Gupta, Sourabh. “The Dalai Lama’s Middle-Way approach needs re-adjustment”. EastAsiaForum. 8 March 2010. http :// www . eastasiaforum . org /2010/03/08/ the - dalai - lamas - middle - way - approach - and - the - need - for - re - adjustment /\n\n[2] ChinaDaily. “What is Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way'”. ChinaDaily.com.cn 26 July 2007. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-07/26/content_649545.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e2b3d5835042a0d7a3247e6d4747a42",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The average Tibetan does not actually want independence from China. For example, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, who was born in a refugee camp in India in 1968 and was named Prime Minister of the Cental Tibetan Administration (Tibetan exiles) on April 27, 2011, was once a militant of the Tibetan Youth Congress, a group that unequivocally supports Tibetan independence, but who now says he has matured and now supports the Middle Way Approach. [1] Certainly, many Tibetans want independence- of a type different to that proposed by the Dalai Lama- and some protest in favour of it. The Tibetan exile population is particularly vocal in this regard, but this should not be taken to mean that a majority of Tibetans want complete independence from China. Most Tibetans like everybody else would be happy with more freedoms within China rather than full independence. This is reflected in the views of the Dalai Lama, who seeks only greater freedoms and autonomy, but not independence, under the 'Middle Way'. [2]\n\n[1] Editorial Board of The Tibetan Political Review. “Investigating the Candidates on the Middle Way”. The Tibetan Political Review. 15 March 2011. http :// sites . google . com / site / tibetanpoliticalreview / project - updates / investigatingthecandidatesonthemiddleway\n\n[2] Barnett, Robert. “Seven Questions: What Tibetans Want”. Foreign Policy. 26 March 2008. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/03/25/seven_questions_what_ti...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af5481f16d84108a56c23ff48339c00",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet China will simply never accept independence for Tibet, and so it is not a reasonable alternative to hold up against the 'Middle Way'. Rather, whatever gains can be made by adopting the 'Middle Way' should be embraced, as the alternative is not independence but rather unchanged Chinese dominance and control.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5658bc73d2c784c554f5cb14216468b9",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The Dalai Lama is the only solution for Tibet. His political advocacy as a leader and religious figure is imperative for the problem of Tibet. His commitment for non-violence and cohabitation and cooperation serves the peaceful interests of Tibet while accommodating for moderate changes. His 'Middle Way' platform is the bridge between China Tibet and world-wide international consensus on the Tibetans' right to self-determination. If resistance to China becomes more violent, as it did in 2008, then the Dalai Lama’s third way will become much more relevant as a solution that both sides can potentially sign up to. It may become the only way forward towards a compromise.\n\nIrrespective of some discontent, the Dalai Lama still enjoys the loyalty and respect of most Tibetans. [1] During the 2008 protests in Tibet, the protesters regularly chanted the Dalai Lama's name, displayed his picture and recited a \"long life\" prayer for him. [2] He remains the undisputed moral leader of Tibetan people, and as such his 'Middle Way' path still has weight.\n\n[1] The Economist. “A colonial uprising”. The Economist. 19 March 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/10880709?story_id=10880709&CFID=1092371&CF...\n\n[2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582113/Tibetans-criticise-Dal...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54761fed7ec46c86dbd841dbbf98f95b",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity\n\nThe Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”. [1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited. [2] [3]\n\nMongolia provides a striking precedent for for Chinese worries about Tibetan independence, as it gained independence through Soviet backing and subsequently came under effective control of the USSR. [4] If Tibet were to achieve independence, both China and Tibet would be weaker, with less geopolitical strength and with greater tensions and opportunities for conflict. This is especially true in light of the history of foreign attempts to interfere with China internally, as noted above. The Dalai Lama made a similar argument himself when he stated: “Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].” [5] In 2008 the Foreign Minister of Cyprus similarly argued that the ‘One China’ policy, including Tibet, was necessary to safeguard China’s territorial integrity. [6] The government of Fiji has offered similar support. [7] The 'Middle Way' accounts for this need of China's whilst also offering greater autonomy to the Tibetan people, thus respecting the rights of both parties.\n\n[1] Abraham Lincoln Online. “House Divided Speech”. Abraham Lincoln Online. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm\n\n[2] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm\n\n[3] Wonacott, Peter. \" Revolt of the Monks : How a Secret CIA Campaign Against China 50 Years Ago Continues to Fester ; A Role for Dalai Lama ' s Brother \" . Wall Street Journal . 30 August 2008. http :// online . wsj . com / article / SB 122005956740185361. html ? mod = googlenews _ wsj\n\n[4] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm\n\n[5] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/19/fears-and-tears.html\n\n[6] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. “Cyprus supports the principle of a ‘single’ China”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. 20 March 2008/ . http :// www . mfa . gov . cy / mfa / mfa 2006. nsf / All /5 B 640 E 57 BE 973 A 1 FC 22574120050 A 086? OpenDocument\n\n[7] Fijilive. “Fiji backs China’s action in Tibet”. Fijilive. 24 March 2008. http :// www . fijilive . com / news _ new / index . php / news / show _ news /3075\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e46704d5ad94c098ec179778f98b6976",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The 'Middle Way' is the most realistic path for Tibet and China\n\nThe Dalai Lama believes complete independence is not a viable solution for the Tibet crisis. Rather, his advocacy is aimed at creating common understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetans. He points to the model of the European Union as an example of a modern supranational political system in which different ethnicities and nationalities can cooperate to achieve an agreed ideal of prosperity.\n\n“Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].” [1]\n\nThe 'Middle Way' is the most practical and realistic path for Tibet and China, as it bridges the needs of the Tibetan people with and interests of China.\n\nSpecifically, the \"Middle Way\" offers a mutually beneficial course of action, as it avoids the concerns that China has regarding national unity and separation and at the same time it enables the Tibetan people to achieve de-facto equivalent of a right to self-determination.\n\nAcceptance of the 'Middle Way' would work as a signal demonstrating the increasing openness and accountability of Chinese political culture. As it is beneficial for both parties, it can be considered as a practical political course with a great potential to alleviate an ever growing strained situation. [2]\n\nChina is more likely to negotiate with Tibetan activists and leaders if their demands are limited to greater political autonomy. Conversely, China is unlikely to give up control of Tibet, as doing so would constitute a grievous blow to the territorial integrity of China itself.\n\nThe 'Middle Way' provides the current generation of Chinese leaders with an opportunity to accord greater autonomy to Tibet, without risking their domestic political capital or jeopardising China’s international standing.\n\nA key aspect of the 'Middle Way' is an undertaking by Tibetan leaders not to push for further independence if greater autonomy is granted.\n\nThe 'Middle Way' also has the advantage of being in keeping with Tibetan Buddhist beliefs, mirroring the religion’s own ‘middle way’ tradition. The Buddhist 'Middle Way' is the descriptive term that Siddhartha Gautama (the Supreme Buddha) used to describe the character of the path he discovered that led to liberation. It was coined in the very first teaching that he delivered after his enlightenment. In this sutta- known in English as The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma- the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. [3]\n\nThe Dalai Lama's “Middle Way” in Tibet is designed, per its name, around these Buddhist principles, and so it has the advantage of being in keeping with the religious beliefs of most of Tibet's population. This adds to its practicality as it would offer a political strategy consistent with the cultural norms of most Tibetans. Therefore, the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way's is the most practical and realistic path toward rapprochement between Tibet and China.\n\n[1] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/19/fears-and-tears .\n\n[2] Gyaltsen, Kelsang. “The Middle-Way approach”. Tibetan Bulletin, July-August 1997. http://tibetoday.com/middle_way_approach.htm\n\n[3] Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya, 56:11 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d74a1adf60af05f7140f5dc6f9b23474",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The Dalai Lama is no longer relevant to Tibet's future\n\nThe Dalai Lama's influence and significance in the debate over Tibet’s future has been fading; he has resigned from all ‘formal authority’ and handed over his political role [1] , and his support for the 'Middle Way' strategy- over attempts to secure full independence- may well have reduced his influence. During the 2008 riots and protests in Lhasa in favour of Tibetan independence, a feeling of incongruity between the Dalai Lama and the desires of the Tibetan people was vocalized. A Tibetan teacher at the protests stated “We are demanding a peace dialogue between His Holiness and the Chinese. But at the moment, Dalai Lama is out of the picture. It's a Tibetan people's movement.” [2] Tibet appears to have moved beyond the 'Middle Way', but the Dalai Lama has not. For a new generation of Tibetans the Middle Way is considered to be an ineffective negotiation strategy, one that will not allow them to obtain the rights and political equality that they seek.\n\nMany activists operating within Tibet itself believe that violent confrontations comparable to the Palestinian intifada will be more effective in extracting concessions from the Chinese than the non-violent protests advocated by the Dalai Lama. [3]\n\nThe Dalai Lama himself has recognized that the 'Middle Way' may become a redundant aspect of the Tibet debate. In 2003, he told a French reporter: “If no results can be achieved in two or three years of negotiations, I would find it hard to explain to the young that the 'middle way' is more effective than seeking independence... If I fail, these young people would raise torches and cry for independence”. [4]\n\nEvents on the ground are simply the Dalai Lama's own prediction coming true, as he become less relevant and less in touch. The Chinese government has also tried to discredit Dalai Lama. The Beijing authorities have released a documentary portraying the Dalai Lama as exploiting the Tibetan people to further his own political agenda. The documentary also emphasized the increased pace of economic development in the region. [5]\n\nQuite simply, Tibet has moved beyond the Dalai Lama and his 'Middle Way', and both are increasingly irrelevant to Tibet's youth and future. The 'Middle Way' continues to be followed mostly out of a nostalgic fascination with the Dalai Lama, or out of the international community's desire for a single, moderate Tibetan voice, even if he does not represent the Tibetan people.\n\n[1] Banyan, ‘The Dalai Lama resigns So long, farewell’, The Economist, 14 March 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/03/dalai_lama_resigns\n\n[2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582113/Tibetans-criticise-Dal...\n\n[3] Sonam, Tenzing. “Until the Last Tibetan”. Tibet Writes. 26 December 2007. http://www.tibetwrites.org/?Until-the-last-Tibetan\n\n[4] ChinaDaily. “What is Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way'”. ChinaDaily.com.cn 26 July 2007. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-07/26/content_649545.htm\n\n[5] Little, Matthew. “CCTV-4 Steps up Propaganda Against Dalai Lama”. Epoch Times. 10 April 2008. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-4-10/68958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c968ead92912c2b1136a29be1ee40fbb",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet Tibetans want independence, not the 'Middle Way'\n\nThe Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' is far from popular amongst the Tibetan population. Many ordinary Tibetans have criticised the Dalai Lama's conciliatory approach to China. His refusal to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games is symbolic of this conciliatory approach where the majority of the Tibetan population, particularly the young disagreed with him. \"China does not deserve to host the Olympics. It's evident that they do not deserve the Olympics,\" said Tsewang Rigzin, the leader of the Tibetan Youth Congress, at Dharamshala in 2008. [1]\n\nTsewang Rigzin also stated “There is a growing frustration within the Tibetan community, especially in the [younger] generation... I certainly hope the Middle Way approach will be reviewed. As we can see from the protests here and all over the world, the Tibetan people remain committed to achieving independence.” [2]\n\nThe (sometimes violent) 2008 protests made it clear that many Tibetans don't support the Dalai Lama's peaceful, non-revolutionary, non-independence 'Middle Way'. The Dalai Lama even had to threaten to resign if violent protests continued. Clearly, these protests showed that the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' lacks support amongst the young of Tibet – the individuals who will comprise successive generations of political, religious and business leaders. [3]\n\nWithin Tibet, pro-independence protesters have recently had more leverage than 'Middle Way' voices. The 'Middle Way' is a nuanced approach to the Tibetan issue and, therefore, is a less potent rallying for Tibetans who have been marginalised or excluded by Chinese policies in the region. Calls for Tibetan Independence mobilise more support among grass-roots activists in other areas of the world. [4] This is valuable, and is an argument in favour of, at least, continuing to call for Tibetan Independence, not merely the 'Middle Way'; it has a greater impact.\n\nIn this situation, it makes no sense for the Dalai Lama to alienate so many of his young people, so many of the most dedicated to the Tibetan cause, by preaching his 'Middle Way' when he should be calling for what his people truly want and need -Tibetan independence.\n\n[1] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582113/Tibetans-criticise-Dal...\n\n[2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582113/Tibetans-criticise-Dal...\n\n[3] The Economist. “Trashing the Beijing Road”. The Economist. 19 March 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/10875823?story_id=10875823&CFID=1092371&CF...\n\n[4] The Economist. “A flaming row”. 9 Arpil 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/11003821?story_id=11003821\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04172d8ba181b0bea4d99f50686f574",
"text": "government house supports dalai lamas third way tibet The Chinese government is exploiting the 'Middle Way' against Tibet's interests\n\nThe Chinese government manipulates people every day, and it is clear how Beijing is manipulating the good intentions of the Dalai Lama and his 'Middle Way'. The Middle Path is therefore not only hopeless, but also dangerous.\n\nHenry Kissinger once said that in politics, one never pays for goods that have already been delivered. True to form, China is using the moderate stance of Tibet’s leadership-in-exile to extort concessions while giving nothing of substance in return. For example, Beijing spread false rumours that the Dalai Lama would be invited to China to prevent demonstrations when Hu Jintao visited the U.S. The 'Middle Way' policy is sapping momentum from the Tibet movement, depriving it of focus, and obscuring its goals. People are drifting away from a movement that appears to be drifting itself; political fervour can be difficult to sustain – especially when the Tibetan government-in-exile actually asks its supporters to behave in a passive a non-confrontational fashion. [1]\n\nBy asking Beijing for an official agreement to grant autonomous status to Tibet, the Tibetan government-in-exile will be surrendering many of the rights they are now entitled to and locking the entire Tibetan people into a constricted and precarious situation from which they cannot withdraw. Chinese restrictions will remain on the practice of Tibetan religion, culture and traditions within \"autonomous\" Tibet, the promotion of Tibetan culture, religion and traditions abroad will either be prohibited or restricted as it concerns foreign affairs, and all foreign travel will be controlled and restricted by the Chinese. [2] Accepting the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' will forever close the door on independence but leave Tibet still victim to China's cultural repression and control, and so it should not be supported.\n\n[1] Dondup, Ketsun Lobsang. “Independence as Tibet’s Only Option: Why the ‘Middle Path’ is a Dead End”. Phayul.com. 25 January 2007. http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=%E2%80%9CIndependence+as...\n\n[2] Shakabpa, Tsoltim N. “The Case Against Autonomy for Tibet”. Tibet Writes. 2 January 2008. http://www.tibetwrites.org/?The-Case-Against-Autonomy-for\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
90f8a46fd7c8432db42586852d29cba1
|
NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation
The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world.
|
[
{
"docid": "97139281e2b1f4c9457ff757c74328c0",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8621551cbf5338a267cf40cfaaefc216",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’. [1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy.\n\n[1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb476f5889dba93367f02c892ae672df",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a larger, more unified market, thus driving down average cost per unit, because of NATO’s efforts in standardizing requirements.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c9f9fa741e92fd4c1609326e1641f86",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these. [1]\n\n[1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72ce228ad783e7d1f1eabd0f1ee056be",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests?\n\nWithout a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e01ff016e48427ece475eaa20f34870",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of U.S. Defence Secretary, a “two-tiered alliance” between “those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership”. As long as Europe continues to take a free ride on the U.S., it will never be able to either shoulder its fair share of the burden, or operate independently outside of NATO. [1]\n\n[1] Gates, Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future. 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e961137995db94e4761d7f9e8f6ab033",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows? [1]\n\n[1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78f01595d8efb9dc8f3ab5343613be8b",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO. [1]\n\n[1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d20dbd35ae3bd0378be4755e423752c",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia\n\nThere are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.” [1]\n\n[1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5210db910f1b0b149fc51b729318e89",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato Continued existence of NATO makes the world less safe\n\nOriginally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic politicians in a classic case of ‘scope creep’. This has happened with U.S. President George Bush jr.’s push to let Ukraine and Georgia in as new members in his global campaign to spread democracy. This has only served to increase tensions with Russia (see next argument). Who is to say that something similar isn’t going to happen vis-à-vis China? [1]\n\n[1] Hamilton, Time to disband Nato now the Cold War is over? 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca6ceff50ad32398237825f4cefeef7",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO costs too much\n\nMaintaining an administration for NATO, with personnel and buildings, costs money. Moreover, whenever NATO-members engage in a mission, they’re supposed to fund their activities under these missions themselves. [1] Given that the original threat has passed and given that the organisation still struggles to redefine itself, why spend money on it?\n\n[1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a0db45a8000753de50ba2353ea980e",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO provides the UN with an effective joint military capability\n\nWhen in early 2011 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, calling upon countries and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect the citizens of Libya against its dictator Ghaddafi, NATO provided effective support through their ‘Operation Unified Protector’, through which it enforced the arms embargo against Ghaddafi and the no-fly zone over Libya. Moreover, the smooth cooperation between France, the UK and the US in their active campaign to provide air support for the rebels in Libya has probably been made easier by the previous cooperation these countries have had through NATO.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "558828d25f57a636e46d15c8a8e135dc",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO allows burden-sharing and specialization amongst its members\n\nFor many members, maintaining a fully operational military that has all the required capabilities (air, sea and land plus required logistics) is impossible: they don’t have enough budget, manpower or political will to maintain a full military. NATO allows members to share their burdens and to specialise. Examples of this are NATO’s AWACS-aircraft (Airborne Warning & Control System) and NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability. Both are instances of NATO-allies pooling resources and sharing burdens. [1]\n\n[1] NATO. AWACS: NATO’s ‘eye in the sky’.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d3bee6bb148e02bdc70df423ebdaec9",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer\n\nIn spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear Iran. As in the past, NATO provides an institutionalized dialogue between partners with shared interest: America has an easily accessible diplomatic forum through which it can garner an international coalition for its policies, and European member states can benefit from access to US military technology and know-how. That’s why throughout 2010 and 2011 NATO has successfully formulated a new ‘Strategic Concept’, a joint strategic vision shared by all members, as well as a policy to improve NATO’s involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction. [1]\n\n[1] NATO. Key NATO policy on stabilisation and reconstruction released to the public. 2011. NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "549a0eb58aa9135a1387041976062f2a",
"text": "onal europe global politics defence house would disband nato NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability\n\nAs of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called for the ending of hostilities but only when NATO and/or the UN became involved militarily, was peace effectively enforced. Consequently, in 2002 NATO and the EU agreed on the Berlin Plus Agreement, allowing the EU to use NATO assets, provided no NATO members vetoed it. Under this agreement, the EU has been able to hold their own peacekeeping missions in the Republic of Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia Herzegovina to oversee the Dayton Agreement (EUFOR Althea). [1]\n\n[1] NATO. NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6dbf0c3f13c796c3a84946cac982d58b
|
A directly elected upper house discourages patronage
Politicians who elect or appoint the members of the upper house have an incentive to put their friends an allies there, because this will make their decision making easier. This is patronage pure and simple: the public will have a hard time sending them away when, if ever, a scandal breaks because the members of the upper house don't depend on public opinion to remain in their seats. An example is the case of a senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once had partaken in terrorist activities, it took almost a year and several mediation attempts to get him removed from parliament. [1]
[1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/senator-told-to-resign-over-g... last consulted August 15, 2011.
|
[
{
"docid": "fc03c33a0cec5b458cca9a11ab025502",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Appointers and electors have to think about their reputation more. Unethically and unprofessionally behaved members of the upper house can still be sent away, either by the politicians who appointed or elected them or by independent inquiry. An example of this is of a Senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once aided freedom fighters in an assault on the Dutch government, he was sent away after careful inquiry. [1]\n\n[1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/senator-told-to-resign-over-g... last consulted August 15, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3cb2060674a7dc4093f62ac0d3f2d285",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people A directly elected upper house obfuscates the political process. An upper house has a different role in the political process than the lower house: the lower house has to channel public opinion whereas the upper house has to provide critical scrutiny and sober second thought. Its legitimacy therefore doesn't stem from backing in public opinion but from careful reflection and well thought-out arguments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c916b2a2d8a6489eab45615d833b8753",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Democracy isn't just 'direct elections'. Democracy is a means to ensure good governance. Stating that an appointed or indirectly elected upper house is 'undemocratic' is not enough. Instead, the proposition should show why an appointed or indirectly elected upper house hinders good governance. Moreover, given the fact that the upper house is either appointed by the directly elected executive, as in Canada, or elected by directly elected provincial legislatures, as in the Netherlands, the people still have the right to decide how they are governed, only indirectly.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95eb77bbdc3c9f86c997fbebbd6fa839",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Sober second thought is undemocratic. A directly elected upper house can also provide an extra cycle in the legislative process if this is deemed desirable. When it comes to 'halting hypes', we need to realize that what constitutes a political hype is also a political choice. Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people'. If public pressure for a certain law is mounting, this means that apparently a large part of the public is urgently in favor of it. If democracy truly means 'rule by the people', then the legislative should respond to this kind of public pressure and not effectively hinder the rule of the people out of some misguided notion of 'political hype'.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c36d3c8b231519a3a36d8ed7630b5f0d",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Feedback in the legislative process reeks of cronyism. Ensuring policy is feasible by checking it with target groups and implementing partners is important. Governments often do this by calling for position papers and organizing focus groups. Using an upper house for this only reeks of cronyism: for example, why would the government award a seat to one big oil company but not to the other?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d1372f5d942f0c0522671c5d073c305",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Expert opinion shouldn't play a role at the legislative stage of political decision making. Expertise is relevant for policy making, but doesn't have a place in the legislative. The legislative is a place for deliberation and negotiation amongst public interests. Expert opinion should inform policy making either via expert policy makers who work for ministries and departments and help draft legislation before it is launched, or via the public, whom they inform and persuade via articles, talk shows and publicizing research.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "613099c22ea68ec64766c44ad75993cc",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people A directly elected upper house is more effective\n\nWhen an upper house is directly elected, it will be perceived to be more legitimate by the public, because the public sees their political views directly translated into a legislative branch, albeit in a different way than the lower house. This enhanced legitimacy will help the upper house in performing their constitutional duties: whenever the upper house disagrees with either the lower house or the executive, the upper house can now strengthen their position by pointing to the public support it has.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f506e3746cf80960726a0f6d16f68b",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people A directly elected upper house is more democratic\n\nDemocracy means self-governance by the people, wherein citizens have the fundamental right to decide how they are to be governed and by whom. An appointed or indirectly elected upper house violates this principle, because allows a group of individuals to exercise power without having to explain or justify themselves to the public\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "898983ca3d2579165cf291d6c1735641",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides more room to involve experts\n\nAppointment or indirect election provides space to involve eminent or expert people into politics. Often, expert and eminent people don't have the time or resources to work on building a career in politics. An example is veteran professional hockey coach Jacques Demers, who was appointed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become a Senator. Demers has been nearly illiterate for all his life but has been a very successful coach. As a Senator, Demers helped raise awareness and generate policy to enhance literacy across Canada. [1]\n\n[1] TSN, ‘FORMER NHL COACH DEMERS TO BE NAMED TO SENATE’. 27 August 2009. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=288991 last consulted August 15, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f938b2d1dc6f8a33ce7208c8e79f596",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides 'sober second thought'\n\nAn extra cycle in the legislative process creates more time to reflect on the pros and cons of each piece of legislation. Moreover, the lower house is pressured by public opinion to react fast to any kind of political hype that comes up. The upper house is more free from public pressure and can thus afford to halt pieces of 'hype-legislation'.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d3cf0983bb6977fd531da449c82938e",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people An appointed or indirectly elected upper house helps policy implementation\n\nAppointment or indirect election provides space to involve leaders of business and civil society in politics. Just like above-mentioned experts, they often don't have time to build a career in politics. But they do have first-hand knowledge of the effects of policy on their businesses and associations. By co-opting them in the legislative process, policy makers don't have to wait until policy is fully implemented to receive feedback on the feasibility of their ideas.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7f9f0d6ef0bebbba07af925f46e3a218
|
A directly elected upper house is more democratic
Democracy means self-governance by the people, wherein citizens have the fundamental right to decide how they are to be governed and by whom. An appointed or indirectly elected upper house violates this principle, because allows a group of individuals to exercise power without having to explain or justify themselves to the public
|
[
{
"docid": "c916b2a2d8a6489eab45615d833b8753",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Democracy isn't just 'direct elections'. Democracy is a means to ensure good governance. Stating that an appointed or indirectly elected upper house is 'undemocratic' is not enough. Instead, the proposition should show why an appointed or indirectly elected upper house hinders good governance. Moreover, given the fact that the upper house is either appointed by the directly elected executive, as in Canada, or elected by directly elected provincial legislatures, as in the Netherlands, the people still have the right to decide how they are governed, only indirectly.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3cb2060674a7dc4093f62ac0d3f2d285",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people A directly elected upper house obfuscates the political process. An upper house has a different role in the political process than the lower house: the lower house has to channel public opinion whereas the upper house has to provide critical scrutiny and sober second thought. Its legitimacy therefore doesn't stem from backing in public opinion but from careful reflection and well thought-out arguments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc03c33a0cec5b458cca9a11ab025502",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Appointers and electors have to think about their reputation more. Unethically and unprofessionally behaved members of the upper house can still be sent away, either by the politicians who appointed or elected them or by independent inquiry. An example of this is of a Senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once aided freedom fighters in an assault on the Dutch government, he was sent away after careful inquiry. [1]\n\n[1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/senator-told-to-resign-over-g... last consulted August 15, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95eb77bbdc3c9f86c997fbebbd6fa839",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Sober second thought is undemocratic. A directly elected upper house can also provide an extra cycle in the legislative process if this is deemed desirable. When it comes to 'halting hypes', we need to realize that what constitutes a political hype is also a political choice. Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people'. If public pressure for a certain law is mounting, this means that apparently a large part of the public is urgently in favor of it. If democracy truly means 'rule by the people', then the legislative should respond to this kind of public pressure and not effectively hinder the rule of the people out of some misguided notion of 'political hype'.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c36d3c8b231519a3a36d8ed7630b5f0d",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Feedback in the legislative process reeks of cronyism. Ensuring policy is feasible by checking it with target groups and implementing partners is important. Governments often do this by calling for position papers and organizing focus groups. Using an upper house for this only reeks of cronyism: for example, why would the government award a seat to one big oil company but not to the other?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d1372f5d942f0c0522671c5d073c305",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people Expert opinion shouldn't play a role at the legislative stage of political decision making. Expertise is relevant for policy making, but doesn't have a place in the legislative. The legislative is a place for deliberation and negotiation amongst public interests. Expert opinion should inform policy making either via expert policy makers who work for ministries and departments and help draft legislation before it is launched, or via the public, whom they inform and persuade via articles, talk shows and publicizing research.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "613099c22ea68ec64766c44ad75993cc",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people A directly elected upper house is more effective\n\nWhen an upper house is directly elected, it will be perceived to be more legitimate by the public, because the public sees their political views directly translated into a legislative branch, albeit in a different way than the lower house. This enhanced legitimacy will help the upper house in performing their constitutional duties: whenever the upper house disagrees with either the lower house or the executive, the upper house can now strengthen their position by pointing to the public support it has.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60963e8dc5a8d0b6b0fd4d84faff4cb3",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people A directly elected upper house discourages patronage\n\nPoliticians who elect or appoint the members of the upper house have an incentive to put their friends an allies there, because this will make their decision making easier. This is patronage pure and simple: the public will have a hard time sending them away when, if ever, a scandal breaks because the members of the upper house don't depend on public opinion to remain in their seats. An example is the case of a senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once had partaken in terrorist activities, it took almost a year and several mediation attempts to get him removed from parliament. [1]\n\n[1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/senator-told-to-resign-over-g... last consulted August 15, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "898983ca3d2579165cf291d6c1735641",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides more room to involve experts\n\nAppointment or indirect election provides space to involve eminent or expert people into politics. Often, expert and eminent people don't have the time or resources to work on building a career in politics. An example is veteran professional hockey coach Jacques Demers, who was appointed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become a Senator. Demers has been nearly illiterate for all his life but has been a very successful coach. As a Senator, Demers helped raise awareness and generate policy to enhance literacy across Canada. [1]\n\n[1] TSN, ‘FORMER NHL COACH DEMERS TO BE NAMED TO SENATE’. 27 August 2009. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=288991 last consulted August 15, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f938b2d1dc6f8a33ce7208c8e79f596",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides 'sober second thought'\n\nAn extra cycle in the legislative process creates more time to reflect on the pros and cons of each piece of legislation. Moreover, the lower house is pressured by public opinion to react fast to any kind of political hype that comes up. The upper house is more free from public pressure and can thus afford to halt pieces of 'hype-legislation'.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d3cf0983bb6977fd531da449c82938e",
"text": "government house believes upper house should be accountable people An appointed or indirectly elected upper house helps policy implementation\n\nAppointment or indirect election provides space to involve leaders of business and civil society in politics. Just like above-mentioned experts, they often don't have time to build a career in politics. But they do have first-hand knowledge of the effects of policy on their businesses and associations. By co-opting them in the legislative process, policy makers don't have to wait until policy is fully implemented to receive feedback on the feasibility of their ideas.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c08852ee249095c709915bdb7fd3d6ab
|
Bribery is sometimes the cost of doing business
Bribery is often inevitable for foreign companies that invest in those countries, where corruption is widespread and the conditions for business development are unfavourable. In Russia IKEA, the Swedish furniture company, was asked to pay bribes to get electricity for its stores and refused hiring generators instead, however the generators themselves had their price inflated, as a result IKEA suspended investment in Russia. [1] It illustrates that bribe giving is just a result of political system with weak democratic traditions. That is why many companies from developed countries, where corruption levels are low, tend to practise bribery in the developing world.
[1] Kramer, Andrew E., ‘Ikea Tries to Build Public Case Against Russian Corruption’, The New York Times, 11 September 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/business/global/12ikea.html?_r=1
|
[
{
"docid": "4e760e359001169d8b3824ea292683c7",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable The developed world also carries part of responsibility for the situation in the developing world due to its role as the bribe-payer. After all, it is largely multinational corporate interests that supply the bribe payments. They defraud the citizens of developing countries who get a less good deal as a result, as well as the interests of shareholders at home whose money is diverted into the pockets of foreign officials. This shows the necessity of treating the bribing of foreign officials as a criminal offence in companies’ home countries. It also requires the publication of all payments relating to foreign deals.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "985971241777bb8c2edfb3fd797ec4a9",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Corruption in any form creates inefficiency and ‘drag’ on the economy – it is an unofficial form of transaction tax and has the same effect on the economy.\n\nThe proposition focuses on the ‘seen’ detriment to public servants of losing income from bribery but ignores the ‘unseen’ benefit of ending bribery which is that the cost of living naturally falls with the cost of doing business.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc66ab7cf38de584c8ed76b87bc5c47d",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable In different cultures the lines between the acceptable and unacceptable are drawn differently. However, there are limits in all societies, beyond which an action becomes corrupt and unacceptable. The abuse of power for private gain and the siphoning off of public or common resources to private pockets should be illegal and unacceptable in all cultures and societies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fa8171bd8bcc7ef18997be5b4ab4e66",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable The position of civil society plays a key role in reducing corruption. Its action in taking a moral stand against corrupted officials is an important precondition for effective anticorruption policy. Hence, citizens who put up with the necessity to give a bribe become a part of the problem. It is not just the case of public officials abusing their positions, but of people who are tempted to choose the easiest way out. Recent developments in India show how quickly expectations can change once people begin to make a stand. Anna Hazare went on a hunger strike creating a mass movement against bribery. Now there are websites such as ipaidabribe.com popping up to shine a spotlight on corruption. [1] The change is the first step in the fight against corruption.\n\n[1] Campion, Mukti Jain, ‘Bribery in India: A website for whistleblowers’, BBC News, 6 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13616123\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3b01b8ce6d528a0879dd5af9036ed7c",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Corruption is not always wrong – it can sometimes be a reaction to greater injustice. For example, the Mafia arose in 19th Century Southern Italy as a mediating institution for an ‘in group’ facing autocratic tyranny. Outsiders are treated badly, but then most groups of people that we label as legitimate also treat outsiders differently to their members.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "780d0ba849e9e714234a97a2b0af969d",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and economic conditions that exist in different countries. You cannot blame them for high level of corruption, which is the inner problem of the state. Involvement of business representatives in anti-corruption actions may contradict their interests by providing access to commercially sensitive information. If bribery was banned, companies would be unable to operate, resulting in less investment and so less development in some countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c830e76cb585f69898aab3336427b1a",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of corruption at the national level is high. It depends on the political will of national governments, the activities of civil society and other social conditions that exists inside the state. This explains why in many countries there has been little enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. [1] In most OECD countries the political will to prosecute major bribery cases is lacking. This explains why international efforts to combat corruption are inefficient.\n\n[1] Transparency International, ‘2008 Progress Report on Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’, 22 June 2008, http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/4th_oecd_progress_report\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ef34d927e4c465b12eac020dbbef9f",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Bribery is sometimes necessary for survival\n\n\"Survival\" corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhaps in highly inflationary economies, which do not allow them to make a living. Such as with the junior police officers mentioned in the previous point. Without bribery, public administration would collapse altogether as no one would have any incentive to get anything done. Thus the level of corruption is determined by the poor economic situation of the country as well as by the policy of the government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a671d71c6aba9ca8ad7d1868022642a8",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Individuals may have no choice\n\nPeople are often made to give bribes to officials because of unfavourable economic, social or bureaucratic conditions. Officials may refuse to serve clients unless they are paid. For example in Delhi police officers regularly take lunch without paying and more senior officers take 10,000 each month to allow the restaurant to stay open late. [1] In those countries where state institutions are extremely corrupted, refusal to give a bribe may cost financial losses for business representatives or even health and liberty for citizens who need medical service and access to justice.\n\n[1] Burke, Jason, ‘Corruption in India: ‘All your life you pay for things that should be free’, guardian.co.uk, 19 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/19/corruption-india-anna-hazare\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a2ce704a8a84d2feb30618d4c796b14",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Bribery is only wrong under a Western-centric notion of corruption\n\nNorms and values differ between countries. In many non-western societies gift taking and giving in the public realm is a matter of traditions and customs. Moreover, gift giving is a part of negotiations and relationship building in some parts of the world. It is hypocritical for the west to target developing countries for this as many so-called democracies are hopelessly compromised by business interests through political funding and lobbying.\n\nThe United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans large bribes but allows for the payment of small ‘customary’ sums in order to ease transactions. [1]\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘When a bribe is merely facilitating business’ June 11th 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/06/anti-bribery-laws\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20bc8871cc7c797d464b63c19523136f",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Variation in standards leads to a ‘race to the bottom’ of corruptibility\n\nInternational standards on prosecution of companies who bribe foreign officials may encourage positive changes in national legislation as well, thus eliminating legal flaws to combat corruption. Different national rules and standards for combating corruption are not sufficient in the era of global investments and international business transactions. Variation between national standards enables corruption to spread. In much the same way as companies and rich individuals make use of tax havens and places where taxes are lower and less regulated, all but two of the UK’s FTSE 100 of top companies are set up in tax havens, [1] companies wishing to hide illicit transactions may attempt to take advantage of weaker standards, wherever they are found. In India national laws have clearly not worked with relation to political parties as only one of 45 parties has provided information in response to the Right to Information act. [2] That is why international efforts to ensure the prosecution of the companies that bribe foreign officials are necessary in the current situation.\n\n[1] Provost, Claire, ‘Tax havens and the FTSE 100: the full list’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/11/ftse100-subsidiaries-tax-data\n\n[2] Times of India, ‘One out of 45 parties disclose information on sources of funding’, 20 July 2013, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-20/india/40694448_1_central-information-commission-political-parties-rti-act\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f9f2b59e44866c47c604641a87bbd57",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable Bribery is morally wrong\n\nCorruption is the misuse of power for financial gain. It takes the core harm from unequal distribution of wealth and the resulting disparity in availability of goods and services and magnifies it by including access to just and nominally public services. It must always disproportionately harm the least well off in society either by denying them what is theirs by right or by forcing them into financial hardship to obtain it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93441662f16475345bb47f2812b4b775",
"text": "conomy general politics leadership house believes bribery sometimes acceptable The demand for bribes would end if companies stopped supplying them\n\nThe risk of corruption demand greater transparency from business. Companies have a big impact on the social environment and they have a responsibility to address it. Co-operative actions between the business sector and state institutions are essential for effective anti-corruption policy.\n\nCompanies that gain a reputation for reporting officials asking for bribes will find that officials stop asking for them. In turn they need a legislative environment that protects their interests. The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials is an important step forward in this sphere. [1]\n\n[1] ‘OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’, oecd.org, 1997, http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3746,en_2649_34859_2017813_1_1_1_1,00.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5f908ebaf6a0effa2603dfb91fa67132
|
Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional
It is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy private insurance, and penalize them for not doing so (that is, penalizing their non-act, their omission to purchase insurance). As David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue: “… Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”(1)
The Congressional Budget Office believes “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”(2) An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it imposes a duty on individuals due to them being members of society. Second, it requires the purchase of a specific service on pain of tax penalties if that product is not purchased. (2)
As noted by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican: "Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it."(3) As Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute argue: “Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.”(4) The individual healthcare insurance mandate would, for the first time, mean the government setting uo a monopoly or a cartel with which every citizen of the US would be compelled- by a statutory power- to do business. This destroys any pretence of individual market freedom, individuals would be required to contribute money out of each and every pay check they earned to either a government entity which would be staffed and/or controlled by political appointees or to a cartel made up of companies that would owe their continued existence on the cartel list to the acquiescence of political overseers. Either way, the reduction in individual autonomy and freedom over health care choices would be dramatically decreased and inevitably politicized. This has obvious worrying possibilities for corruption, the party in power would favour those who donate to the party.(5)
Enforcing the mandate may also intrude on Constitutional rights. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, “[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws [people who flout the law] will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”(6)This is likely to mean much more intrusive inspection, for example hospitals having to report to the government patients they have who don’t have health insursnce..(6) This is why a majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and several courts have already struck it down on constitutional grounds.(7)
For all these reasons it is clear that for Congress to try to penalize a non-act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, and so the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
|
[
{
"docid": "89d7463823c58aac0d1c4d4594587adf",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The federal government mandates positive activities all the time, and this is why several courts have also upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.(7)\n\nRegarding the charge that the individual mandate penalizes a 'non-action', Stephanie Cutter, an adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued: \"Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us—when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.\"(7) Thus these people are not engaging in a 'non-action' but rather in an economic choice which has negative implications for other Americans, something Congress has the constitutional power to regulate under the commerce clause and the constitution's provision that Congress should promote the general welfare.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3e2ff4bd41c7c934c9dcd33700056ef4",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states A refusal to purchase healthcare insurance can have an effect on interstate commerce, because in shrinking the risk pool of insured the premiums would incrementally rise. In 2007, healthcare expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 a person, and accounted for 16.2% of the gross domestic product. These statistics leave no doubt that regulating health insurance is synonymous with regulating interstate commerce.(10)\n\nNot engaging in economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10)\n\nThe likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated; indeed, it is necessary for the health and welfare of the general population to provide treatment to individuals suffering from infectious diseases. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f66388c3ac403a176cbc714cd399841",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The healthcare insurance can be unprecedented but still be constitutional as Erwin Chemerinsky argues: “Anything that has never been done before is literally unprecedented, which means it lacks any precedent. So the question is, will the Supreme Court want to authorize this new extension of congressional power in light of the fact that it violates the first principles it affirmed in Lopez and Morrison? Or, to the contrary, will it want to take the opportunity reaffirm that these principles still apply, notwithstanding Raich, in a case with no further implications beyond the statute in question?”(10)\n\nRegarding the argument that the healthcare mandate will allow Congress to regulate everything and everyone, such hyperbole and apocalyptic predictions are familiar in this area. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by child labour. The Court concluded its opinion by declaring: \"[I]f Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government practically destroyed.\" For more than 70 years Congress has prohibited child labour and none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Nor would allowing Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance mean that Congress could regulate who people invite to their homes for dinner or end our system of federalism.(10)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a73bce8ea6245afaa9ba18e99cea7cf9",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Insurance mandates are not a tax and therefore are outside of constitutional powers. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor, claims that health insurance mandates are not a tax, and therefore falls outside congressional power. “You're fining people for failing to enter a private insurance contract.”(3)\n\nMoreover, as Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith argue: “the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the 'taking' of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a per-cent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.”(6)\n\nRegarding the “general welfare” arguments adduced by side opposition: The words 'general Welfare' show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'. Significantly, Notice the Constitution does not say the 'general welfare of the citizens of the United States.' It says \"general Welfare of the United States.' This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project, including health care.(13)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "525b5412a1aeb243d45d9ad20e74d519",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Mandatory health insurance is not analogous to car insurance. Car insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.\n\nStates do not require non-drivers, including passengers in cars with potentially bad drivers, to buy auto insurance liability policies -- even though such a requirement undoubtedly would lower the auto insurance premiums for those who do drive. The auto insurance requirement is linked to driving and to the possibility that bad driving may cause injuries to others, including passengers in the driver's car, not to those who benefit from roads generally.(2) The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself. And the auto insurance mandate is a quid pro quo for having the state issuing a privilege: in this case a driver’s license.(6)\n\nRegarding the claim that Medicare tax provides a justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate, it is worth noting that the architects of Medicare harboured grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States government. However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits, although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out”, other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.(6)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "752d13eb7df5cb7f642c2e348842dba0",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states These arguments overlook the existence of two major cases – United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison – in which the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that Congress can regulate non-commercial behaviour merely because, arguably, such behaviour can have an impact on Commerce. The Court's overarching reason for doing so was its compellingly articulated belief that the Commerce Clause is a limited grant of power and one that cannot be infinitely capacious. This reasoning is unassailable, and demonstrated that the individual mandate is not a reasonable application of the commerce clause.(8) Rather, this interpretation of the commerce clause could potentially America's constitutional structure. Every single decision made by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, a car, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy. Such decisions could therefore be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to determine how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes.\n\nMeanwhile, the Supremacy Clause- which ensures that any constitutional federal legislation trumps exercises of state power- would all but guarantee that an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause would rob States of any remaining authority. This point was ably articulated by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in Lopez.(8) Accordingly, there is a great deal at stake here. No matter how important the cause of health care reform might be, it is not consequential enough to destroy the very sinews of America’s constitutional system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4426dec1c98379dacbe07f191884d07",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause\n\nMany attorneys general have fought constitutionality of mandates. Since the passage of the legislation in March of 2010, many state governments, governors, and attorney generals have pressed forward with lawsuits centred on the idea that the individual mandate in the legislation is unconstitutional.(7) Underlying these legal challenges is a debate about the basis of the national Congress’s lawmaking powers. In order for laws passed by Congress to be considered legitimate and enforceable, those laws must be based on a power conferred on congress by the Constitution. On those areas of law and public life where the Constitution is silent, legislative power rests not in the hands of Congress, but rather is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(9)\n\nIt has been argued that the individual healthcare mandate is authorised by the Constitution's empowerment of Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” (known as the “commerce clause”), however this is not true and the commerce clause does not authorize health insurance mandates. As the Congressional Research Service has written: \"Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”(2) The most obvious reason for this is that an omission to buy health insurance can in no way be termed 'interstate commerce', as there is no activity or commerce going on. This is not in keeping with the commerce clause, unlike other previous federal healthcare laws.\n\nThere is no doubt that Congress can regulate an entire array of economic activities, large and small, inter- and intra-state. Thus, for example, there is no problem, Constitution-wise with having Congress regulate health care insurance purchase transactions. The problem with an individual insurance purchase mandate, however, is that it does not regulate any transactions at all; it regulates human beings, simply because they exist, and orders them to engage in certain types of economic transactions.(8)\n\nWhile most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual citizen who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat, for example, (Wickard v. Filmore) or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).(6)\n\nIf Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behaviour that does not constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez, invalidating the application of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals, and United States v. Morrison, invalidating certain portions of the Violence Against Women Act.\n\nIn the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.(6) Therefore, it is clear that Congress is not empowered to regulate the choice not to buy healthcare, as it lacks constitutional authorisation to interfere in this aspect of individual Americans’ private lives.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c79376c25784da0ce4645cea67e97a9",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The individual mandate gives too much power to the Federal Government\n\nThe vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general powers (including the right to operate their own police forces), is a key part of America's constitutional architecture. Far from being an 18th century affectation, these structural limitations on government powers were designed to protect individual liberty. In the Framers' view, limiting the ability of the federal government to exercise authority was core to ensuring that no single government entity would grow too powerful. This is because, under the Supremacy Clause, any constitutionally compliant federal legislation trumps exercises of individual state’s powers. Therefore, an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause (which would be produced if the mandating of healthcare were to be allowed) would rob States of any remaining authority.(8)\n\nWhen any choice or non-action which has economic impacts becomes termed as “economic”, every aspect of consumer behaviour, or, for that matter, any aspect of individual behaviour, would become an economic activity, and thus nothing would fall outside of Congress' power to regulate under the commerce clause.(8)\n\nThe individual health insurance mandate would set dangerous precedents for federal power. The Congressional Budget Office acknowledged the unprecedented nature of an individual mandate when assessing the Clinton health care reform proposal of 1993: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate has two features that, in combination, make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would have to be heavily regulated by the federal government.\"(2)\n\nThe 'commerce clause on steroids', as imagined by supporters of the healthcare mandate, would fundamentally warp America's constitutional architecture. Because every single decision by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, cars, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy, it could be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to dictate how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes, transforming Americans into virtual serfs.(8) For all these reasons the individual healthcare mandate would give too much power to the federal government, in ways which are antithetical to the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it and set it out (with restricted and separate powers), and so it should be deemed unconstitutional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "130950b398cf3e4b0c78a408ab105f17",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause\n\nCongress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.\n\nHealth insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. Where a Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that ”strong” and potentially more intrusive forms of action are less supported than weaker ones.(11)\n\nCritics of an individual mandate cite recent Supreme Court cases in which the Court has limited the commerce clause’s power. However, those cases (Lopez and Morrison) involved regulation of non-economic activity. The individual mandate regulates the relationship between sellers and buyers of health care insurance. Moreover, the Court was concerned in Lopez and Morrison with efforts by Congress to intrude into areas that are properly regulated by state governments and thereby to upset the balance of power between the federal and state governments. By contrast, congressional regulation of the health care industry does not violate state prerogatives.\n\nTo be sure, much regulation of insurance occurs at the state level, but that is because Congress has chosen by statute to defer to state regulation. The Constitution does not prevent Congress from revoking its statutory grants to state governments.(12) Those who argue that this is unconstitutional maintain that those not purchasing health insurance, by definition, are not part of interstate commerce. There are numerous flaws with this argument.\n\nFirst, Congress can regulate activities that themselves are not part of interstate commerce if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat that farmers grew for their own home consumption. More recently in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled that Congress could prohibit cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use. Even though the individuals were not personally engaged in commerce, the matter still fit within the commerce power.(10)\n\nSecond, the decision to abstain from particular economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10) This is made more significant by the fact that the decision to remain uninsured can affect commerce- both within and between states- by raising health insurance premiums. This is because insurance premiums tend to rise in response to reductions in the size of the pool of individuals to whom financial risk can be distributed.(14)\n\nCitizens who forego health insurance are forcing other Americans to cover their costs if they are sent to hospital for emergency treatment. They are also forcing others to pay higher insurance rates, now that insurance companies can no longer legally exclude those with pre-existing conditions.(15)\n\nThird, the likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs. In other words, the health care system is part of interstate commerce. Providing care for all unquestionably has a substantial economic effect. Congress, then, can use its authority under the necessary and proper clause to make sure that the system that it is creating is viable and capable of providing health care for all.(10)\n\nTherefore the individual healthcare mandate is constitutional because it is authorized under the commerce clause of the constitution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75e333de00ab0ecacef5f4dde30b083f",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers\n\nAn insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid 'regulation,' it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty.\n\nThe only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a 'head tax' or 'poll tax' (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws.\n\nPurists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behaviour, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional. (11) In many ways, the 'mandate' could be considered a tax, but a tax which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax”, a tax on transactions or events, or a “penalty tax”, a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.(17)\n\nHealth insurance mandates incentivize behaviour like many other laws. At one time, the Supreme Court restricted the ability of Congress to use its taxing power to regulate people's activities. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Court drew a distinction between taxes designed to raise revenue, which were permissible, and taxes designed to regulate behaviour, which might not be permissible. However, this distinction was jettisoned by 1937, and the taxing power is now recognized as a broad congressional power.(12) Moreover, Congress has the power to make laws which promote the general welfare. As Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued in November of 2009: “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.\" The words \"general Welfare\" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: \"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”(12)\n\nThe power to promote the general welfare becomes crucial when it is considered that it is impossible to create a national health insurance system and help the current 30 million uninsured is to mandate everyone to buy health insurance. You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007. If citizens within a state are not obliged to participate in a healthcare scheme (whether privately of publicly organised), then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. Such behaviour will alter the composition of the risk pool, such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of \"adverse selection\". Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known- somewhat histrionically- as an “insurance death spiral”.\n\nStates that wish to pursue the goal of creating an affordable, universally available system of healthcare, must ensure that the majority of their citizens buy into such a scheme.(13) Because there is a compelling benefit to the \"general welfare\" in instituting a national welfare program, the federal government may rely on Constitutional authority to impose a health insurance mandate. If the States were left to do this, with some instituting a mandate and some not, many would be left uninsured and the risk pool would not be adequately spread. The difference in benefits to the country clearly justifies federal action to create this individual mandate under the Constitution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a18717be7d681f4a0e58336165ec308",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Mandatory health insurance is analogous to constitutional mandates\n\nFederal mandates are a cornerstone of the American legal system and the everyday life of every American. As Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Iowa's attorney general Tom Miller, argued in 2010: \"We live under mandates every day. Without them, society as we know it would disintegrate. Every criminal law tells us what we cannot do. And sometimes the law tells us what we must do. Congress can require young Americans to register for the draft to serve in the military, for example, or can require us all to pay taxes for programs like Social Security and Medicare. We can- and do- argue about what shape these laws should take, without claiming that our leaders are constitutionally barred from dealing with our most pressing problems.\"(16)\n\nCar insurance is mandatory, so why not health insurance too? If the government requires that individuals buy car insurance, why should it not also be allowed to require that individuals buy health insurance? Some say that there is no mandate to buy car insurance because if you don't want to buy that car insurance, you simply don't have to drive. Yet, for the majority of families and workers, driving is a necessity and not a choice. So, the mandate on drivers to buy insurance is, therefore, directly analogous to a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance.\n\nMedicare tax also sets an important justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.(12)\n\nIt is significant here that there is no fundamental right to go without insurance under the Constitution; no core constitutional rights are violated by the individual mandate. Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive, alongside treatment that they might not be able to consent to (by reason of infirmity), but that doctors and hospitals may be ethically obliged to provide.\n\nThe “liberties” that are modified by the individual mandate are purely economic and have none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that are normally used to invoke Constitutional protection.\n\nIn short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.(11) This means that the healthcare mandate is no different to the many other mandates the federal government imposes on the American people to support the general welfare, and as such should be upheld as constitutional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
81a65201cfc285a34ff0c382a59ca789
|
The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers
An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid 'regulation,' it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty.
The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a 'head tax' or 'poll tax' (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws.
Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behaviour, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional. (11) In many ways, the 'mandate' could be considered a tax, but a tax which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax”, a tax on transactions or events, or a “penalty tax”, a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.(17)
Health insurance mandates incentivize behaviour like many other laws. At one time, the Supreme Court restricted the ability of Congress to use its taxing power to regulate people's activities. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Court drew a distinction between taxes designed to raise revenue, which were permissible, and taxes designed to regulate behaviour, which might not be permissible. However, this distinction was jettisoned by 1937, and the taxing power is now recognized as a broad congressional power.(12) Moreover, Congress has the power to make laws which promote the general welfare. As Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued in November of 2009: “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”(12)
The power to promote the general welfare becomes crucial when it is considered that it is impossible to create a national health insurance system and help the current 30 million uninsured is to mandate everyone to buy health insurance. You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007. If citizens within a state are not obliged to participate in a healthcare scheme (whether privately of publicly organised), then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. Such behaviour will alter the composition of the risk pool, such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of "adverse selection". Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known- somewhat histrionically- as an “insurance death spiral”.
States that wish to pursue the goal of creating an affordable, universally available system of healthcare, must ensure that the majority of their citizens buy into such a scheme.(13) Because there is a compelling benefit to the "general welfare" in instituting a national welfare program, the federal government may rely on Constitutional authority to impose a health insurance mandate. If the States were left to do this, with some instituting a mandate and some not, many would be left uninsured and the risk pool would not be adequately spread. The difference in benefits to the country clearly justifies federal action to create this individual mandate under the Constitution.
|
[
{
"docid": "a73bce8ea6245afaa9ba18e99cea7cf9",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Insurance mandates are not a tax and therefore are outside of constitutional powers. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor, claims that health insurance mandates are not a tax, and therefore falls outside congressional power. “You're fining people for failing to enter a private insurance contract.”(3)\n\nMoreover, as Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith argue: “the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the 'taking' of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a per-cent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.”(6)\n\nRegarding the “general welfare” arguments adduced by side opposition: The words 'general Welfare' show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'. Significantly, Notice the Constitution does not say the 'general welfare of the citizens of the United States.' It says \"general Welfare of the United States.' This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project, including health care.(13)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "525b5412a1aeb243d45d9ad20e74d519",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Mandatory health insurance is not analogous to car insurance. Car insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.\n\nStates do not require non-drivers, including passengers in cars with potentially bad drivers, to buy auto insurance liability policies -- even though such a requirement undoubtedly would lower the auto insurance premiums for those who do drive. The auto insurance requirement is linked to driving and to the possibility that bad driving may cause injuries to others, including passengers in the driver's car, not to those who benefit from roads generally.(2) The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself. And the auto insurance mandate is a quid pro quo for having the state issuing a privilege: in this case a driver’s license.(6)\n\nRegarding the claim that Medicare tax provides a justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate, it is worth noting that the architects of Medicare harboured grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States government. However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits, although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out”, other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.(6)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "752d13eb7df5cb7f642c2e348842dba0",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states These arguments overlook the existence of two major cases – United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison – in which the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that Congress can regulate non-commercial behaviour merely because, arguably, such behaviour can have an impact on Commerce. The Court's overarching reason for doing so was its compellingly articulated belief that the Commerce Clause is a limited grant of power and one that cannot be infinitely capacious. This reasoning is unassailable, and demonstrated that the individual mandate is not a reasonable application of the commerce clause.(8) Rather, this interpretation of the commerce clause could potentially America's constitutional structure. Every single decision made by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, a car, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy. Such decisions could therefore be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to determine how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes.\n\nMeanwhile, the Supremacy Clause- which ensures that any constitutional federal legislation trumps exercises of state power- would all but guarantee that an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause would rob States of any remaining authority. This point was ably articulated by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in Lopez.(8) Accordingly, there is a great deal at stake here. No matter how important the cause of health care reform might be, it is not consequential enough to destroy the very sinews of America’s constitutional system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e2ff4bd41c7c934c9dcd33700056ef4",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states A refusal to purchase healthcare insurance can have an effect on interstate commerce, because in shrinking the risk pool of insured the premiums would incrementally rise. In 2007, healthcare expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 a person, and accounted for 16.2% of the gross domestic product. These statistics leave no doubt that regulating health insurance is synonymous with regulating interstate commerce.(10)\n\nNot engaging in economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10)\n\nThe likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated; indeed, it is necessary for the health and welfare of the general population to provide treatment to individuals suffering from infectious diseases. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f66388c3ac403a176cbc714cd399841",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The healthcare insurance can be unprecedented but still be constitutional as Erwin Chemerinsky argues: “Anything that has never been done before is literally unprecedented, which means it lacks any precedent. So the question is, will the Supreme Court want to authorize this new extension of congressional power in light of the fact that it violates the first principles it affirmed in Lopez and Morrison? Or, to the contrary, will it want to take the opportunity reaffirm that these principles still apply, notwithstanding Raich, in a case with no further implications beyond the statute in question?”(10)\n\nRegarding the argument that the healthcare mandate will allow Congress to regulate everything and everyone, such hyperbole and apocalyptic predictions are familiar in this area. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by child labour. The Court concluded its opinion by declaring: \"[I]f Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government practically destroyed.\" For more than 70 years Congress has prohibited child labour and none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Nor would allowing Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance mean that Congress could regulate who people invite to their homes for dinner or end our system of federalism.(10)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89d7463823c58aac0d1c4d4594587adf",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The federal government mandates positive activities all the time, and this is why several courts have also upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.(7)\n\nRegarding the charge that the individual mandate penalizes a 'non-action', Stephanie Cutter, an adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued: \"Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us—when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.\"(7) Thus these people are not engaging in a 'non-action' but rather in an economic choice which has negative implications for other Americans, something Congress has the constitutional power to regulate under the commerce clause and the constitution's provision that Congress should promote the general welfare.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "130950b398cf3e4b0c78a408ab105f17",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause\n\nCongress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.\n\nHealth insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. Where a Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that ”strong” and potentially more intrusive forms of action are less supported than weaker ones.(11)\n\nCritics of an individual mandate cite recent Supreme Court cases in which the Court has limited the commerce clause’s power. However, those cases (Lopez and Morrison) involved regulation of non-economic activity. The individual mandate regulates the relationship between sellers and buyers of health care insurance. Moreover, the Court was concerned in Lopez and Morrison with efforts by Congress to intrude into areas that are properly regulated by state governments and thereby to upset the balance of power between the federal and state governments. By contrast, congressional regulation of the health care industry does not violate state prerogatives.\n\nTo be sure, much regulation of insurance occurs at the state level, but that is because Congress has chosen by statute to defer to state regulation. The Constitution does not prevent Congress from revoking its statutory grants to state governments.(12) Those who argue that this is unconstitutional maintain that those not purchasing health insurance, by definition, are not part of interstate commerce. There are numerous flaws with this argument.\n\nFirst, Congress can regulate activities that themselves are not part of interstate commerce if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat that farmers grew for their own home consumption. More recently in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled that Congress could prohibit cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use. Even though the individuals were not personally engaged in commerce, the matter still fit within the commerce power.(10)\n\nSecond, the decision to abstain from particular economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10) This is made more significant by the fact that the decision to remain uninsured can affect commerce- both within and between states- by raising health insurance premiums. This is because insurance premiums tend to rise in response to reductions in the size of the pool of individuals to whom financial risk can be distributed.(14)\n\nCitizens who forego health insurance are forcing other Americans to cover their costs if they are sent to hospital for emergency treatment. They are also forcing others to pay higher insurance rates, now that insurance companies can no longer legally exclude those with pre-existing conditions.(15)\n\nThird, the likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs. In other words, the health care system is part of interstate commerce. Providing care for all unquestionably has a substantial economic effect. Congress, then, can use its authority under the necessary and proper clause to make sure that the system that it is creating is viable and capable of providing health care for all.(10)\n\nTherefore the individual healthcare mandate is constitutional because it is authorized under the commerce clause of the constitution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a18717be7d681f4a0e58336165ec308",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Mandatory health insurance is analogous to constitutional mandates\n\nFederal mandates are a cornerstone of the American legal system and the everyday life of every American. As Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Iowa's attorney general Tom Miller, argued in 2010: \"We live under mandates every day. Without them, society as we know it would disintegrate. Every criminal law tells us what we cannot do. And sometimes the law tells us what we must do. Congress can require young Americans to register for the draft to serve in the military, for example, or can require us all to pay taxes for programs like Social Security and Medicare. We can- and do- argue about what shape these laws should take, without claiming that our leaders are constitutionally barred from dealing with our most pressing problems.\"(16)\n\nCar insurance is mandatory, so why not health insurance too? If the government requires that individuals buy car insurance, why should it not also be allowed to require that individuals buy health insurance? Some say that there is no mandate to buy car insurance because if you don't want to buy that car insurance, you simply don't have to drive. Yet, for the majority of families and workers, driving is a necessity and not a choice. So, the mandate on drivers to buy insurance is, therefore, directly analogous to a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance.\n\nMedicare tax also sets an important justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.(12)\n\nIt is significant here that there is no fundamental right to go without insurance under the Constitution; no core constitutional rights are violated by the individual mandate. Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive, alongside treatment that they might not be able to consent to (by reason of infirmity), but that doctors and hospitals may be ethically obliged to provide.\n\nThe “liberties” that are modified by the individual mandate are purely economic and have none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that are normally used to invoke Constitutional protection.\n\nIn short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.(11) This means that the healthcare mandate is no different to the many other mandates the federal government imposes on the American people to support the general welfare, and as such should be upheld as constitutional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4426dec1c98379dacbe07f191884d07",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause\n\nMany attorneys general have fought constitutionality of mandates. Since the passage of the legislation in March of 2010, many state governments, governors, and attorney generals have pressed forward with lawsuits centred on the idea that the individual mandate in the legislation is unconstitutional.(7) Underlying these legal challenges is a debate about the basis of the national Congress’s lawmaking powers. In order for laws passed by Congress to be considered legitimate and enforceable, those laws must be based on a power conferred on congress by the Constitution. On those areas of law and public life where the Constitution is silent, legislative power rests not in the hands of Congress, but rather is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(9)\n\nIt has been argued that the individual healthcare mandate is authorised by the Constitution's empowerment of Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” (known as the “commerce clause”), however this is not true and the commerce clause does not authorize health insurance mandates. As the Congressional Research Service has written: \"Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”(2) The most obvious reason for this is that an omission to buy health insurance can in no way be termed 'interstate commerce', as there is no activity or commerce going on. This is not in keeping with the commerce clause, unlike other previous federal healthcare laws.\n\nThere is no doubt that Congress can regulate an entire array of economic activities, large and small, inter- and intra-state. Thus, for example, there is no problem, Constitution-wise with having Congress regulate health care insurance purchase transactions. The problem with an individual insurance purchase mandate, however, is that it does not regulate any transactions at all; it regulates human beings, simply because they exist, and orders them to engage in certain types of economic transactions.(8)\n\nWhile most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual citizen who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat, for example, (Wickard v. Filmore) or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).(6)\n\nIf Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behaviour that does not constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez, invalidating the application of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals, and United States v. Morrison, invalidating certain portions of the Violence Against Women Act.\n\nIn the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.(6) Therefore, it is clear that Congress is not empowered to regulate the choice not to buy healthcare, as it lacks constitutional authorisation to interfere in this aspect of individual Americans’ private lives.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c79376c25784da0ce4645cea67e97a9",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states The individual mandate gives too much power to the Federal Government\n\nThe vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general powers (including the right to operate their own police forces), is a key part of America's constitutional architecture. Far from being an 18th century affectation, these structural limitations on government powers were designed to protect individual liberty. In the Framers' view, limiting the ability of the federal government to exercise authority was core to ensuring that no single government entity would grow too powerful. This is because, under the Supremacy Clause, any constitutionally compliant federal legislation trumps exercises of individual state’s powers. Therefore, an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause (which would be produced if the mandating of healthcare were to be allowed) would rob States of any remaining authority.(8)\n\nWhen any choice or non-action which has economic impacts becomes termed as “economic”, every aspect of consumer behaviour, or, for that matter, any aspect of individual behaviour, would become an economic activity, and thus nothing would fall outside of Congress' power to regulate under the commerce clause.(8)\n\nThe individual health insurance mandate would set dangerous precedents for federal power. The Congressional Budget Office acknowledged the unprecedented nature of an individual mandate when assessing the Clinton health care reform proposal of 1993: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate has two features that, in combination, make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would have to be heavily regulated by the federal government.\"(2)\n\nThe 'commerce clause on steroids', as imagined by supporters of the healthcare mandate, would fundamentally warp America's constitutional architecture. Because every single decision by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, cars, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy, it could be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to dictate how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes, transforming Americans into virtual serfs.(8) For all these reasons the individual healthcare mandate would give too much power to the federal government, in ways which are antithetical to the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it and set it out (with restricted and separate powers), and so it should be deemed unconstitutional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70fc1c2f0ceebcbad5dd644be29c9569",
"text": "alth general healthcare politics government house believes united states Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional\n\nIt is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy private insurance, and penalize them for not doing so (that is, penalizing their non-act, their omission to purchase insurance). As David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue: “… Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”(1)\n\nThe Congressional Budget Office believes “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”(2) An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it imposes a duty on individuals due to them being members of society. Second, it requires the purchase of a specific service on pain of tax penalties if that product is not purchased. (2)\n\nAs noted by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican: \"Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it.\"(3) As Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute argue: “Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.”(4) The individual healthcare insurance mandate would, for the first time, mean the government setting uo a monopoly or a cartel with which every citizen of the US would be compelled- by a statutory power- to do business. This destroys any pretence of individual market freedom, individuals would be required to contribute money out of each and every pay check they earned to either a government entity which would be staffed and/or controlled by political appointees or to a cartel made up of companies that would owe their continued existence on the cartel list to the acquiescence of political overseers. Either way, the reduction in individual autonomy and freedom over health care choices would be dramatically decreased and inevitably politicized. This has obvious worrying possibilities for corruption, the party in power would favour those who donate to the party.(5)\n\nEnforcing the mandate may also intrude on Constitutional rights. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, “[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws [people who flout the law] will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”(6)This is likely to mean much more intrusive inspection, for example hospitals having to report to the government patients they have who don’t have health insursnce..(6) This is why a majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and several courts have already struck it down on constitutional grounds.(7)\n\nFor all these reasons it is clear that for Congress to try to penalize a non-act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, and so the individual mandate is unconstitutional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
33f686c1c1df69c9c6aeec6047c47a17
|
Referendums are very artificial.
The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1]
[1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4568819.stm
|
[
{
"docid": "7437af912aa2c6290f6b563047cc8bf3",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use It is perfectly possible to construct a model for increased use of referendums which reduces to a minimum the distorting factors cited by the Opposition. For example, the timing, wording and conduct of the polls could be overseen by an independent commission. Rules could also be implemented to restrict spending by both sides to fair levels. Media, too, are bound by law in many countries to provide equal coverage to both sides. [1]\n\n[1] “A comparative look at referendum laws”, Institute for International Law and Human Rights, February 2009. http://iilhr.org/documents/complookreferendumlaw.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b5093340d0b05398286ef1b60b1a9df8",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.\n\nSaying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1820fc1cb3735b8a6e95bccfd203d186",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use People are bored with politics because they think that it is irrelevant to them and that politicians are not interested in their opinions. Increasing the use of referendums is an excellent way of increasing engagement with the general public; it forces the political establishment to listen to popular opinion, and gives ordinary people a much greater say in how their country is run. See Proposition argument 3, above.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "774c0dc43aa95dab558bdf249ec1ac85",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say 30%. Or indeed by implementing a threshold for setting up a referendum in the first place. There is no reason to think it would be hard to find a formula that avoids these sorts of problems.\n\nIt may be formally true that the same referendum question could be put to the public again and again, but the same can be said of any political question in the status quo. Once a referendum has been held on an issue, politicians are unlikely to risk the wrath of the electorate by making them vote on the same question repeatedly.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f099cb75e835b1278564f90a3bdd0b7",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.\n\nFurthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]\n\n[1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c3baa46fa29b64f475536fb93fd6b5c",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.\n\nAs for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13a36ddf54e9aad2d8da834d4be48c51",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "239c4b116bebf171a2d6e51b03187ce3",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4686d40cb40f778dd57ab5910f21cffd",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebad89fc02e2692b05dc4a34e258b57f",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4408a2799ce9409f9cd51a8ccfe269",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Public opinion is changeable\n\nUnless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law. [1]\n\nFurthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time.\n\n[1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/pathtodevolution/index.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0102a4350d78cafa0124a03a1b14beea",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use The job of a government is necessarily long term.\n\nIt is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.\n\nSimilarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole; [1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.\n\nThis approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776) [2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.\n\n[1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/bobo/pdf%20documents/Attitudes.pdf\n\n[2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af5665de1fa2c201f42534a6bf6e98e",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use People are currently bored with politics.\n\nThe last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public. [1]\n\n[1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15th April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/15/alternative-vote-referendum-chesterfield\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "634a9d78701ff41b748e151365f83b7c",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.\n\nIn the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]\n\n[1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbde7456b7b2b31c0ce92537b8fa463",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Improves standards in political governance.\n\nThe trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests.\n\nIncreased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system. [1]\n\n[1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "936f5a12843685d379ecb080c40587fa",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.\n\nPeople are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1]\n\n[1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970c71e0f72fef96120b98109f15976e",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes\n\nParticularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies, [1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination. [2]\n\n[1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22nd June 2009. http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadas-questionable-coalition/\n\n[2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9th 2011. http://www.ejiltalk.org/sudan%E2%80%99s-lesson-for-secession-a-comment/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2833267e806d7adce266128f8f301687",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Redresses imbalance between state and individual.\n\nGovernments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1]\n\n[1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJune06.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c45baab5b7f71a65aa2a2e265aba3274",
"text": "politics general government local government voting house calls increased use Ensures that all views are represented in political debate.\n\nMany countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want.\n\nConsequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored.\n\nFor example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented.\n\n[1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4th August 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d6095df7d6786138c9eae2a2287edf00
|
Lack of trust
The problem is that when it comes to privacy it is not really our personal physical security that we are worried about. Part of the problem is that we value our right to a private life and that we should have control over that to the extent of being able to decide how much information others know about us. To a large extent this is an issue of trust; we (sometimes wrongly) trust our friends and others with information about us. We often trust faceless entities; companies and governments too though usually to less of an extent. But a lot of that trust is as a result of their willingness to tell us what they know about us, to provide information in return, or to provide methods for us to restrict what they know. In cases like this that trust has not been earned; we were not asked, and not obviously given anything back, and there seems little change of us changing the terms of the relationship.
|
[
{
"docid": "d02a6ae9edb4487925cc3d36d045162e",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy The intelligence agencies are not violating any right to privacy if they are not actually looking at the content of any emails, even less so as they in almost all cases won’t even be looking at the metadata. It is not possible for intelligence agencies to be asking the people before engaging in every surveillance policy as even knowing the broad outlines of what the surveillance involves could allow the targets of that surveillance to avoid that surveillance. While individual citizens are not asked this is where the people’s representatives should be trusted, it is ministers and members of parliament that allow surveillance and hold the agencies to account.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8e469a6687919ee707d821b4d9deebd2",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Far from threatening democracy the intelligence agencies are using this information to protect democracy from terrorists who wish to overthrow the whole concept of democratic governance. Intelligence agencies are clearly under civilian control and have several layers of oversight to ensure that this kind of misuse does not take place. In the United States this means there is oversight from Congress and in the UK from Parliament. There is also judicial oversight in the form of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner in the UK [1] and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the US. [2]\n\n[1] ‘Judicial Oversight’, Security Service MI5, https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/how-mi5-is-governed/oversight/judicial-oversight.html\n\n[2] ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’, Federal Judicial Center, http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76f01bdd933be3af65f37decbb5fdb14",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories. [1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data. [2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies.\n\n[1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/fbi_hoover_nsa_prism_verizon_metadata\n\n[2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients ’.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad2b8ffc1dc43eff35273c057fc2f80",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy The circumstances in the cold war were clearly different to today so this kind of abuse of power would be unlikely to happen. More broadly yes there is the potential for abuse in much the same way that there are people in banks who could steal large quantities of other people’s money. That there is a potential opportunity does not mean it is ever used. Abuse can never be totally avoided but if abuse is a concern then whether or not there is a program of surveillance is not the highest concern. Even if there were not wide ranging surveillance problems those in intelligence looking to abuse their position would be able to obtain the information because they have the technology to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d33e038ed068b4736eb6f92a8f0cc73b",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Is it really an invasion of privacy if no one else knows about it even if that information is added to some giant computer database? The information we wish to keep secret remains a secret, in the unlikely event that some analyst reads the information they are never going to broadcast it to others as keeping secrets is a part of what intelligence agencies do.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ab352e1f669ad27dad1923de405b75",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy There have been wrongful arrests during the war against terror. Riwaan Sabir was wrongfully arrested under the terrorism act in 2008 for downloading an al-Qaida training manual despite the manual having been downloaded from a US government website and been for his master’s degree at the University of Nottingham. [1] Since the offence was online it is certainly possible that information from spying was a part of the cause for the arrest. It is true that we probably have less cause for concern when it is foreign governments doing the spying but this could still have consequences such as being denied entry if you wish to travel to or through the country.\n\n[1] Townsend, Mark, ‘Police ‘made up’ evidence against Muslim student’, The Guardian, 14 July 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/14/police-evidence-muslim-student-rizwaan-sabir\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4377e3c4c0a61ab9616d9df0b54e18",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Clearly if no one ever actually looked at any information provided by surveillance then there would be no point in conducting it. Even if it were true that no one looks at any of the data being watched is still an intrusion that affects behaviour. It will affect decisions that are perfectly lawful because there will always be the slight worry that someone who you don’t want to have that information because they will think differently of you will obtain it. When the information is out of your hands you can no longer be certain who will obtain it. [1] Since people have been arrested for the information that has been conducted, clearly sometimes the information is checked and used.\n\n[1] Moore, Mica, and Stein, Bennett, ‘The Chilling Effects of License-Plate Location Tracking’, American Civil Liberties Union, 23 July 2013, http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/chilling-effects-license-plate-location-tracking\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42a616f5f2d0d70cfcd51af250988388",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy In the UK case this is not all it appears. The Intelligence Services Commissioner is comparatively toothless, and both it and the Interception of Communications Commissioner are immensely understaffed for monitoring all UK intelligence agencies. Some experts such as Professor Peter Sommer have even suggested “I am not sure that ministers or the ISC would know what questions to ask.” [1] Moreover this is trusting that ministers have the best interests of the people at heart, in the case of this conservative government which seems perfectly happy to introduce bills that erode freedoms such as the ‘snoopers charter’ this seems unlikely.\n\n[1] Hopkins, Nick, ‘William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/william-hague-spying-scandal-nsa-statement\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52396d0e036d5ab346fef5e8974989b9",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Physical risk is not the only risk that people worry about. Denying someone their liberties such as privacy or freedom of expression does not pose a physical risk to them but that act is still wrong and it is still worth worrying about. Citizens have the right to go about their own business without their government spying on them. They should not have to concern themselves with what information the government does or does not have.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aab9b7d7add54b505264d414935630cc",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Loss of Privacy\n\nIt is wrong to state that we only have anything to ‘fear’ if we have done something wrong; a great many people want to keep things private where what they have done is morally perfectly right and justifiable. It is perfectly justified for a married couple to want to keep a video of them having sex private – even if it is sent from one partner to the other by email, or for someone to keep his/her sexual orientation secret even if they have told someone about it. [1] If we want such information to be kept private does the state have any business picking that information up from our emails? It may not go any further than the intelligence agency, it is possible no one there will look at it but it is still an invasion of privacy.\n\n[1] Phillipson, Gavin, ‘Q&A: The right to privacy’, BBC Religion, 14 June 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/22887499\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "659b74eca7344e87b12426a92f76639f",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy The use of meta data causes unintentional harm\n\nThe other possible harm is unintentional. The amount of data involved is huge and too much even for a vast organization like the NSA to actually physically look at. Instead it uses data mining. This is why the NSA wants data that may seem useless to others. The records of which phone numbers are phoning who, as the NSA was obtaining of Verizon, might seem useless but can tell them who you are contacting, and how much contact time they have. In turn they could look at who your contacts have been talking to and if it turns out that several of them talk regularly to suspected terrorists then even if you are innocent a finger of suspicion might be pointed. There has even been a study showing that individuals can be identified from just the time of call and nearest cell phone tower after just four calls. [1] PRISM gives the NSA even more ‘useless’ data to play with. The results of this data mining may usually be accurate but will not always be so and the result of being flagged like this can be problematic for individuals. It may mean additional airport security, having problems getting a visa, [2] or in the worst case finding its way onto a no fly list.\n\n[1] De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, et al., ‘Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility’, Scientific Reports, 3, 25 March 2013, http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/full/srep01376.html\n\n[2] Brown, Ian, ‘Yes, NSA surveillance should worry the law-abiding’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/nsa-snooping-law-abiding\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96faa44abb36098b717408944a537023",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy A threat to democracy\n\nYes the NSA is unlikely to look at individual’s personal information if the person in question is nobody of interest yet there are people who may be of interest to the state who are essentially innocent of anything except annoying the state. The ability for almost anyone in the intelligence apparatus to look up personal information has to worry anyone who might otherwise dissent, investigate the government, or turn whistleblower. Intelligence officials can hold the information as a weapon to ensure compliance and ruin careers if they don’t get their way. [1] This has happened before. In the US when diplomat Joseph C. Wilson published about the manipulation of intelligence on uranium from Niger being used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq his wife had her cover blown and career destroyed by people within the Department of Defense. [2] When we know that the Obama administration has been more determined than ever to prevent leaks and prosecute perpetrators can it really be said there is no damage to democracy if these courageous people are not coming forward?\n\n[1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/10/what_me_worry_the_real_threat_behind_the_nsa\n\n[2] Wilson, Joseph C., ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa’, The New York Times, 6 July 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm\n\nLewis, Neil A., ‘Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role’, The New York Times, 30 August 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html?_r=0\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce061c2ffb6332204c871b7d45a42a47",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies\n\nEven when the government does not intend harm there are still cases where direct harms can occur as a result of surveillance. The most worrying are where the state abuses the information it holds. Abuse of power and of the information held by government is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to trust in intelligence agencies. In one historical example from the 1950s FBI agents interviewed a Brooklyn liquor importer for repeating a rumor that the FBI Director J Edgar Hoover might be a “queer”. This clearly necessitated a reminder through questioning that Hoover’s “personal conduct is beyond reproach,” leading to the man quickly agreeing that “he thinks Mr. Hoover has done a wonderful job.” [1] Did this have anything to do with national security? No. Was it an abuse of power and surveillance? Yes. So far as we are aware the intelligence agencies don’t do things quite like this anymore but the revelations like PRISM, or the waterboarding a decade ago, show they are still happy to abuse their position from time to time. This is hardly a good way to build trust.\n\n[1] Gage, Beverly, ‘It’s Not About Your Cat Photos’, Slate, 10 June 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/06/nsa_prism_program_can_we_trust_the_government_with_our_secrets_no.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69707134b5dad9c289b3c35888f610b4",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications\n\nClearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror. [1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent.\n\n[1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/09/is-the-nsa-surveillance-threat-real-or-imagined\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d28b7240933c630c197815c4c6b74e12",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy There are safeguards to prevent misuse\n\nIn democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”. [1]\n\n[1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/06/10/william-hague-prism-statement-in-full\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04d7d106b59efa31e62f66577dbe141e",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy There is no physical risk\n\nIn terms of physical risk it is almost certainly true that you have nothing to fear from government having loads of information. With the exception perhaps of the Russian FSB and despite the James Bond films intelligence agencies in democracies are not in the habit of bumping people off this mortal coil. In this sense it does not matter at all what information the intelligence services have on you; no matter how naughty you may have been it is not going to be worth some kind of physical retaliation. Essentially the argument here is that it does no harm, and even does some good, so why should it not continue?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afc5446a6ce8015bb7f373644e2f9f6d",
"text": "ch debate free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy No one will ever actually look at the information\n\nIf the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles. [1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely.\n\n[1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/10/what_me_worry_the_real_threat_behind_the_nsa\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c9be8484704533dc61e51d2c995e383d
|
Unlikely to make any progress
Weapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.
[1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10367242/Chemical-watchdog-chief-calls-for-Syria-ceasefire.html
[2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24566722
|
[
{
"docid": "ee8cae28a67755b71f5e46501ee9d31a",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b16d3181cadc7ac12a1a704ee1e858f",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dad96feb77005651ce076c1cafafd04",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d23d0d2893d7f020cac731f5540e97f1",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0456984a6419e7bef5154cfd95f523c6",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de41d9c3e2b9c21207e3701e39673339",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’. [1]\n\n[1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/don-let-assad-sign-chemical-weapons-convention-syria-behalf-201392981058347857.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52613af3438d0fca769eb235a11b3861",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.\n\n[1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/09/12/would-the-syria-deal-be-a-coercive-diplomacy-success/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fc97c851476baaa9cbd51e18c2713e",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Taking the weapons inspectors out of Syria need not be permanent, simply until there is peace and hopefully a new regime.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "389015afc0c35d5bc3865192517c83c0",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors What about biological weapons?\n\nChemical weapons are a horrifying weapon of mass destruction but they are by no means the only such horrific weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence says “We judge that some elements of Syria’s biological warfare programme might have advanced beyond the research and development stage and might be capable of limited agent production, based on the duration of its longstanding programme”. [1] Biological weapons could potentially be even more devastating than chemical weapons as they don’t necessarily affect just a localised area then disperse. As with other viruses they can be passed from person to person. In a country like Syria where the health services have broken down, and basically don’t exist in opposition areas the result could be huge numbers of deaths. It is inconsistent to disarm one type of weapon while leaving another type of WMD available to the Syrian regime.\n\n[1] AFP, ‘Syria ‘may be able to produce biological weapons’’, The Telegraph, 29 January 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10605512/Syria-may-be-able-to-produce-biological-weapons.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61d4afa4ccecef4d412a349b9607e7d",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors don’t solve the real problem\n\nThe biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013 [1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths. [2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution.\n\n[1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/group-says-syria-death-toll-at-115000/\n\n[2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/22/syria-attack/2683855/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d80d76518814cd842f06210eefefec41",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Syria has not lived up to its commitments\n\nSyria is falling well behind on handing over its weapons. The deadliest chemicals were supposed to be removed by 1st January and the rest by 6th February. Neither happened. The Syrian government blamed the lack of protective equipment as well as the security situation but the OPCW says it has handed over the necessary equipment. [1] Under a new timetable Syria has pledged to remove all chemical weapons by 13th April, but by the end of March had only removed just over half. [2] If Syria continues to fail to meet deadlines there have to be consequences, including abandoning the mission.\n\n[1] Blanford, Nicholas, ‘Months of stalling preceded Syria’s latest chemical weapons handover’, CS Monitor, 4 March 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0304/Months-of-stalling-preceded-Syria-s-latest-chemical-weapons-handover\n\n[2] AlJazeera, 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/watchdog-half-syria-chemicals-removed-2014327235384570.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7fcf0050139114f672dde075d2caa73",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat\n\nUnless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons. [1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end.\n\n[1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org, https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50cc01b094c0884e14fe72a22aee9f5",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors A point on the path to peace\n\nSometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point. [1]\n\n[1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/negotiating-syrian-peace-moscow-geneva\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2a291e3dd6d27af3c1e4b81306b77ca",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict\n\nBefore the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to \"thwart U.S. aggression\". [1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option.\n\n[1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8d490e15dd4fa6ca9928bb0555108c0",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave\n\nThere were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena.\n\nIf the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases. [1]\n\nBecause of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.” [2]\n\n[1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24142-how-the-us-may-try-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons.html#.Umadffmkr_D\n\n[2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3144\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
18767309dbe90dfa6cf9f5639e0bf521
|
Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict
Before the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to "thwart U.S. aggression". [1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option.
[1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html
|
[
{
"docid": "0456984a6419e7bef5154cfd95f523c6",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de41d9c3e2b9c21207e3701e39673339",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’. [1]\n\n[1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/don-let-assad-sign-chemical-weapons-convention-syria-behalf-201392981058347857.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52613af3438d0fca769eb235a11b3861",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.\n\n[1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/09/12/would-the-syria-deal-be-a-coercive-diplomacy-success/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fc97c851476baaa9cbd51e18c2713e",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Taking the weapons inspectors out of Syria need not be permanent, simply until there is peace and hopefully a new regime.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b16d3181cadc7ac12a1a704ee1e858f",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dad96feb77005651ce076c1cafafd04",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee8cae28a67755b71f5e46501ee9d31a",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d23d0d2893d7f020cac731f5540e97f1",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7fcf0050139114f672dde075d2caa73",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat\n\nUnless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons. [1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end.\n\n[1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org, https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50cc01b094c0884e14fe72a22aee9f5",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors A point on the path to peace\n\nSometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point. [1]\n\n[1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/negotiating-syrian-peace-moscow-geneva\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8d490e15dd4fa6ca9928bb0555108c0",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave\n\nThere were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena.\n\nIf the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases. [1]\n\nBecause of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.” [2]\n\n[1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24142-how-the-us-may-try-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons.html#.Umadffmkr_D\n\n[2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3144\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "389015afc0c35d5bc3865192517c83c0",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors What about biological weapons?\n\nChemical weapons are a horrifying weapon of mass destruction but they are by no means the only such horrific weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence says “We judge that some elements of Syria’s biological warfare programme might have advanced beyond the research and development stage and might be capable of limited agent production, based on the duration of its longstanding programme”. [1] Biological weapons could potentially be even more devastating than chemical weapons as they don’t necessarily affect just a localised area then disperse. As with other viruses they can be passed from person to person. In a country like Syria where the health services have broken down, and basically don’t exist in opposition areas the result could be huge numbers of deaths. It is inconsistent to disarm one type of weapon while leaving another type of WMD available to the Syrian regime.\n\n[1] AFP, ‘Syria ‘may be able to produce biological weapons’’, The Telegraph, 29 January 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10605512/Syria-may-be-able-to-produce-biological-weapons.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "752f0755a729cd9516f55afe8c98eaa1",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Unlikely to make any progress\n\nWeapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.\n\n[1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10367242/Chemical-watchdog-chief-calls-for-Syria-ceasefire.html\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24566722\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61d4afa4ccecef4d412a349b9607e7d",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors don’t solve the real problem\n\nThe biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013 [1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths. [2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution.\n\n[1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/group-says-syria-death-toll-at-115000/\n\n[2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/22/syria-attack/2683855/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d80d76518814cd842f06210eefefec41",
"text": "onal middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Syria has not lived up to its commitments\n\nSyria is falling well behind on handing over its weapons. The deadliest chemicals were supposed to be removed by 1st January and the rest by 6th February. Neither happened. The Syrian government blamed the lack of protective equipment as well as the security situation but the OPCW says it has handed over the necessary equipment. [1] Under a new timetable Syria has pledged to remove all chemical weapons by 13th April, but by the end of March had only removed just over half. [2] If Syria continues to fail to meet deadlines there have to be consequences, including abandoning the mission.\n\n[1] Blanford, Nicholas, ‘Months of stalling preceded Syria’s latest chemical weapons handover’, CS Monitor, 4 March 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0304/Months-of-stalling-preceded-Syria-s-latest-chemical-weapons-handover\n\n[2] AlJazeera, 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/watchdog-half-syria-chemicals-removed-2014327235384570.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
63ea202605759fedc5ce3d82d4034622
|
English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood
Some have made the argument that Puerto Rico should not be a state because Puerto Ricans do not speak English, and that the US should not have a non-English speaking state. This argument does not hold up for the following reasons: English is already an official language on the island with the same status as Spanish. Puerto Ricans are already citizens of the U.S., and have been since1917. [1] There was no language requirement with the granting of citizenship then, so it makes no sense to ask this question now. In fact, there has never been a language requirement of territories entering the union in American history. English is a required subject in public schools through high school. English is the only language of the Federal Court system and all U.S. government agencies in Puerto Rico and is the common language in banking, commerce, real estate and the tourism industry. Learning English as well as Spanish just makes good sense. English is the international language of business, science, and increasingly, diplomacy. Puerto Rico should do all it can to increase English language capability. But, making it a requirement of statehood would ignore the precedents of Enabling Acts of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona, all of which similarly had issues of large non-English speaking populations and gave or give these other languages some official status in law. [2]
[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.
[2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.
|
[
{
"docid": "9137c4604d727d918157630e92349e79",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience, including the examples listed. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes. [1]\n\n[1] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c0d49d6a221c23b6187c052b2f824802",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek As an American state, Puerto Ricans would pay federal income taxes, which most currently do not. Some businesses would also lose tax breaks they currently enjoy. [1] This would harm not only the wealth of individual Puerto Ricans but also harm the country's economic standing, as it would become less appealing as an investment destination without these tax breaks and with the presence of federal income taxes. There is no guarantee that the extremely high rates of economic growth the pro-statehood optimists forecast will actually come about to balance out these increased costs for all Puerto Ricans. Historically statehood could have been disastrous for Puerto Rico's economy: the post-World War Two economic growth in Puerto Rico was the result of special treatment via exemption from Federal corporate taxes resulting from Puerto Rico' special non-state status. [2]\n\n[1] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4).\n\n[2] Leibowitz, Arnold H. “Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations”. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1989.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a375157f222ba0d9301bf44cde8e5a09",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Regardless of what Puerto Ricans may or may not “deserve”, the fact is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood many times now, making their voices heard on this issue many times since the late 1960's. The island has repeatedly voted to remain a commonwealth when votes were taken in 1967, 1993, and 1998. [1] If Puerto Ricans actually like their current status enough to vote for it when presented with the alternatives of statehood or independence, where is the injustice in that status continuing?\n\n[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5651fa0bf91a6a52c57035582e6e92f9",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek The arguments regarding the loss of Puerto Rican culture under statehood do not stand up because Puerto Rican identity is strong and will continue to be so. Puerto Rico has been exposed to U.S. mainland cultures for over 100 years, and Puerto Rican culture and heritage has thrived and grown. Puerto Ricans and mainland citizens have moved freely between the island and the mainland with no resulting cultural dilution or weakening of Puerto Rican's strong identity, even with the large migrations of the 1930's, the 1950's and since then. There is no reason to believe this would change under statehood. Puerto Rico has adopted and adapted aspects of U.S. culture, just as we have incorporated much of Puerto Rican culture when exposed to it. Puerto Ricans, while citizens, in much the same way as Texans and others view themselves, are still Puerto Ricans despite the more than 100 years of the deep and strong relationship with the mainland United States. [1]\n\n[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2446c19813dc95893d888bd08c333348",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Firstly, Puerto Ricans have repeatedly rejected independence in referendums in 1967, 1993, and 1998, with the votes for independence always being fewer than those for statehood. But secondly, the reasons against Puerto Rican independence are myriad. If Puerto Rico were to vote for independence, it would be hugely costly. It is inconceivable that the U.S. would set Puerto Rico adrift without a large \"transition package\" and continued foreign aid of a large magnitude. This would be necessitated by the fact that Puerto Ricans are currently U.S. citizens, who would demand favourable treatment and help. Puerto Rico, as an island with 3.8 million people and no other significant natural resources, is not economically viable as a separate nation without significant external aid and free access to large markets like the US enjoys. With statehood, Puerto Rico can be economically viable and a contributor to the United States' wealth, but with independence it would be impoverished and isolated. [1] Moreover, the American 'melting pot' has always been about the fusion of different cultures together, not their disappearance, and this will be the same for Puerto Rican identity.\n\n[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2c31941196969cfc2d099acb5b86583",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Much of this argumentation assumes that the Puerto Rican economy will not expand with statehood, which there are many good reasons to believe would occur. Look at what happened to the last two states admitted to the Union, Hawaii and Alaska. Both economies grew substantially after being admitted to the Union and became net contributors to the U.S. Treasury. Puerto Rico would receive equal treatment in both taxes and benefits, the same as the other states. Benefits to the island under the current system are limited by Congress. Those limitations would be removed. At the same time, payments of federal taxes would be phased in, as provided by the enabling legislation. It has been estimated Puerto Rico as a state will contribute nearly $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury each year. [1] How is that possible? Through economic growth. With economic growth there are more jobs, fewer unemployed, and less of a public assistance burden.\n\n[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc033c816cc93bf24c9befe2246b2c81",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood\n\nAmerican statehood would lead to significant economic growth for Puerto Rico. Statehood would mean that the island would shed its ineffective and costly reliance on preferential tax credits and more fully integrate into the national economy. In a study by Hexner, Jenkins, Lad and Lame, \"Puerto Rican Statehood: A Precondition to Sound Economic Growth,\" the case is persuasively made that statehood is necessary for the island's economic growth. [1] [2] As an American state, the standard of living in Puerto Rico would profoundly improve for the average person. With average income going up, families would be able to pay their fair share of taxes while still improving their net income and standard of living. For those with low incomes, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have the same access to tax relief and federal support programs as any other citizen of the country, unlike under the present status where significant disparities exist. This is particularly significant as approximately 50% of Puerto Ricans live under the federal poverty line. [3]\n\nMany areas of US Federal funding to Puerto Rico would actually improve. For example, the current 50 states can receive up to 90% reimbursement through Medicaid for critical health information technologies; Puerto Rico is not eligible for these supplements. According to 2005 Congressional testimony by Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, had Puerto Rico been treated like the other states, it would have received $1.7 billion dollars in federal Medicaid support instead of the $219 million received. Translated to monthly amounts, federal Medicaid support in the states approximated $330 per month per participant; the amount in Puerto Rico was about $20 per month. [4] The US is one of the richest countries on earth, and being a full part of it would give Puerto Ricans a lot of practical advantages that the independent countries of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean lack. The right to move to the US-proper and work there legally, for example, is extremely valuable. [5] Overall, therefore, there is a compelling economic case for Puerto Rico to seek American statehood.\n\n[1] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”.\n\n[2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n\n[3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n\n[4] Frisse, Dr. Mark. “Puerto Rico”. Wellshpere. 7 September 2008.\n\n[5] Yglesias, Matthew. “What is the Case for Puerto Rican Independence?”. Think Progress. 1 May 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "466bcc2cbcd61852c9d0fc6ab7e8a63b",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Puerto Ricans deserve full political rights and citizenship\n\nCurrently, Puerto Ricans do not receive full political rights and equal representation, despite their American citizenship. Although it has its own Governor and legislature which handles some domestic matters, inhabitants of Puerto Rico receive no say in US federal matters or foreign policy, despite being heavily affected by them (more so than most current American states, as Puerto Rico sits in the Caribbean surrounded by other island nation-states). [1] If Puerto Rico became a US state, Puerto Ricans would then share as everyone else in full benefits from the US government, while paying taxes like everyone else.\n\nThe status quo perpetuates a semi-colonial situation in Puerto Rico, where American citizenship, which they have held since 1917, carries fewer rights than in the US proper. This has been the situation since the US captured Puerto Rico in 1898, and no other US territory has been held in limbo like this for so long. During this time Puerto Ricans have supported the US by serving in large numbers, both voluntarily and through conscription, in the US military in every major war since the Spanish-American War. [2]\n\nHowever the island's current status still prompts United Nations to still debate whether Puerto Rico is a colony. [3] US congressional inquest into Puerto Rico's political situation has found that, despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, “all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.” [4]\n\nThe former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, Jose Trias Monge, has written a book on the political status of Puerto Rico entitled “Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World.” Therein he argued that just prior to the U.S. invasion, the Island enjoyed greater freedom and rights in certain areas than it does now, including an insular parliament that could legislate in matters of monetary policy, banking, import/export duties, and public credit; the ability of Puerto Rico to negotiate its own commercial treaties; Puerto Ricans were Spanish citizens, equal in all respects to mainland Spanish citizens; the Spanish Constitution applied in Puerto Rico in the same manner as it applied in Spain proper; the Autonomic Charter of 1897, which governed Puerto Rico's relation with Spain, could not be changed except with Puerto Rico's consent. [5] The political rights currently enjoyed by Puerto Ricans, such as their right to elect their own Governor, are not even guaranteed to them in the status quo. In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. [6] To perpetuate this current second-class status is morally unacceptable in a nation which pledges itself to “liberty and justice for all”.\n\n[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n\n[2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n\n[3] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4).\n\n[4] U.S House of Representatives. ‘Puerto Rico Democracy Act’, 110th Congress. Second Session. Report #597. 2007, Washington, D.C.\n\n[5] Monge, Jose Trias. “Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World”. Yale University Press. 1997.\n\n[6] Hill, Fay and Edmondson, \"United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2D 1143 (1993) United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Paragraphs 44 – 46)\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96748753dad0149cf4a34c6a440fb644",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US\n\nIf Puerto Rico were to enter the US in such a way as to harm the US economy or if it were to become a burden to the US, this could lead to resentment of Puerto Rico by the rest of the US and hamper integration. The unemployed in Puerto Rico will at least have higher welfare benefits to fall back on if statehood is granted, meaning more money lost to the U.S. treasury. [1] Puerto Rico's per capita income of $8,509 is less than one third of the US average, and about one half that of Mississippi, the poorest state. The government sector in Puerto Rico generates approximately 380,000 jobs, or 33% of total employment can be unfavourably compared to the percentage of the economy of Puerto Rico from tourism: About 6%. The average monthly per capita income in Puerto Rico $709 per month. Social Security Disability payments are at least $790 per month. Rank of a state of Puerto Rico as a state among states based on population: 25th. Rank of Puerto Rico currently if included among states based on persons receiving disability income: 16th. [2] Even with the gain to the U.S. Treasury of taxes now not being paid by Section 936 companies, the CBO put the cost of Puerto Rican statehood as $9.4 billion in the first four years. These costs do not include matters like government and court translation expenses should Puerto Rico declare itself to be a solely Spanish-speaking land. [3] [4] [5] Nor does it include the costs to the U.S. Treasury of as many as seven representatives and two Senators whose continuance in office will depend on their pleasing an impoverished constituency. Legislation to increase federal spending on social programs of all sorts need not fail narrowly in either house of the U.S. Congress, as it does at the moment, if Puerto Rico's delegation (twice the size of West Virginia's) enters the equation. [6] Clearly neither the United States nor Puerto Rico can afford Puerto Rican statehood, and it makes no sense for Puerto Rico to enter into such an unstable relationship where resentment against Puerto Rico (and Puerto Ricans living in the US) will breed fast.\n\n[1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n\n[2] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.\n\n[3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.\n\n[4] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”.\n\n[5] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.\n\n[6] Fund, John. “Puerto Rico, the 51st State?”. The Wall Street Journal. 13 May 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d42266105881d1914c84cebba768117",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity\n\nPuerto Rico should not become an American state because linguistic and cultural differences continue to divide the other 50 states and Puerto Rico. This would mean that Puerto Rico would either fit incongruously into the union, or it would lose its distinct cultural identity. Historically the US administrations of Puerto Rico have pursued 'Americanization' campaigns there, focusing especially around imposing the use of the English language and casting aside 'old values'. This policy was deeply resented and strongly resisted by most Puerto Ricans, and it failed. Thus, after 91 years of intimate association, Puerto Rico remains a separate cultural nationality. [1] [2]\n\nFurthermore in terms of national identity, Puerto Rico joining the US would result in it losing the semi-independent (or at least distinct) identity which it currently has in the eyes of much of the world. To name but two examples, Puerto would no longer have its own representative in the Miss Universe Pageant (which Puerto Rico has actually won on three occasions) and they would not be recognized as an individual nation in the Olympic games, as it currently is. These international representations would be curbed under statehood, as Puerto Rico would be required to participate in the same manner as the other 50 states, and to compete to represent the United States collectively, and not Puerto Rico individually, in these international events. [3]\n\nChanging language policies would also undermine Puerto Rican culture: the territories that became Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (who all had large and historically rooted non-English-speaking populations) were all admitted to the union by congressional enabling acts that required that “schools shall always be conducted in English” in order to ensure assimilation. [4] This would likely also be the case with Puerto Rico, and could undermine the access of future generations of Puerto Ricans to their Hispanic heritage and culture, subsuming it within the overpowering tide of English-speaking American culture. Thus the Puerto Rican people are highly independent and have immense pride in their district and rich Latin culture and Spanish language, and they should not be deprived of that culture, which statehood would arguably contribute towards.\n\n[1] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.\n\n[2] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.\n\n[3] Essortment. “Puerto Rican Statehood, the An overview of the pros and cons”. Essortment.com.\n\n[4] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a7f5b3353ea9e5095d5f2a6421a2e8d",
"text": "government local government voting house believes puerto rico should seek Statehood would prevent Puerto Rican independence\n\nThe US has treated Puerto Rico as little more than a colony for 100 years, and this has seeped into the Puerto Rican mentality in harmful ways. According to educational scientists Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, in their 1973 work The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook, the belief that Puerto Rico cannot survive on its own results from teachings since grade school. “Puerto Ricans here and in Puerto Rico are taught three things: Puerto Rico is small and the US is big, Puerto Rico is poor and the US is rich, Puerto Rico is weak and the US is strong.” [1] Popular author and Puerto Rican culture enthusiast Jesús Omar Rivera similarly argues that “in Puerto Rico, ever since you are a child, you are told that you live on a tiny island that has no natural resources, nothing. This is what they teach you in school, on TV, the media, and it’s always negative.” He argues says this perception is a by-product of the island’s political dependence on the U.S.. “There is this colonized mentality that everything from abroad is better.” [2]\n\nNone of this would change under statehood, and arguably would get even worse as Puerto Rican culture, still perceived as 'inferior' to all things American, would decline even further. Puerto Rican nationalist Juan Mari Brás has argued “Only through a great unified movement looking beyond political and ideological differences, can the prevalent fears of hunger and persecution be overcome for the eventual liberation of Puerto Rico, breaking through domination by the greatest imperialist power of our age”. [3] Attaining Puerto Rican independence us the only great cause which can unite all Puerto Rican people and allow them to break out of this colonized mentality and reclaim their dignity as a people and as a nation. To enter into US statehood would simply be to accept this colonized mentality and the denigration of all things Puerto Rican, to the advantage of the all-consuming American culture.\n\n[1] Cordasco, Francesco and Bucchioni, Eugene. “The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook”. 1973. Littlefield, Adams, & Co..\n\n[2] Martorell, Carlos Rodríguez. “Have a Puerto Rican question? Ask El Boricuazo”. NYDailyNews. 3 June 2008.\n\n[3] Peacehost.net. “Juan Mari Brás”.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a8fba51a51d2ed289a4578a4411424e3
|
Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage
50% of all divorcees in the UK go on to remarry. (National Office for Statistics 1999) This shows that, although their own marriage failed, they retain faith in the institution of marriage. The fact that, even when marriage has failed to work for them once, many people wish to give it another go shows that it is still meaningful to society. If an institution is so meaningful and relevant to modern society in this way, it cannot possibly be outdated.
|
[
{
"docid": "8d7d92e91cab07a8e663f6b3eff8392e",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The fact that 50% of all divorcees (National Office for Statistics 1999) go on to remarry does not, as the opposition claims, show that marriage is a meaningful and relevant institution but quite the opposite. What this means is that a huge number of people vow to spend the rest of their life with another person, forsaking all others until death do them part, on multiple occasions. This does not show that society still has faith in marriage, it shows that society no longer respects the institution of marriage.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6a844433296df6c5e6812ecbf3d416a3",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2a32415c475f26e05236968bc3c430",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution In the last 20 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as religious has declined by 20%. This shows that religion as a whole is becoming less important and, with it, marriage is becoming less important. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddd99b1937394af3deccfd63bc029a5c",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution If marriage’s main function is to protect against bereavement and divorce then it is essentially protecting against harms that it itself brings. Without marriage, bereavement and divorce would cease to be as serious harms as they currently are.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc776fbb1467f2b5c085266f4d2472a",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.\n\nThe choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e9b1b9f50a08b4a57254f13f51ef5fa",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution This argument only works under the assumption that we live in a society where divorce does not exist. If a person enters into a marriage without full awareness of what they have committed to and later need to get out of that marriage, they are free to.\n\nBeing able to leave a marriage, though, does not make marriage a meaningless charade, as the proposition claims. It is still more difficult to leave a marriage than it is to leave a non-marital committed relationship and so it makes a big difference.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e36a91d3b0e0184c55bda30d3b1cd0c2",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The idea that the existence of marriage undermines other methods of raising children is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that making it legal for same-sex couples to adopt undermines raising children as a heterosexual couple or as a single parent.\n\nSome people choosing to raise children in a certain way does not prevent or inhibit other people doing so in a different way.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f339151f7520595458b1f399506e4576",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.\n\nThe proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76ddf6d920b7e3797c87e2034e935677",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The purpose of marriage is not an eternal, unrelenting union, whether it is wanted or not. The purpose of marriage is to foster a more stable relationship than would be possible without marital vows. Therefore, the fact that divorce is becoming more common and easier to obtain does not undermine the institution of marriage at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce9413e006f866a7a3dc83479e96dc19",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Once a couple get married, they have made an official and legal commitment, which makes it more difficult for them to split up. This means that, irrespective of divorce statistics, adding marriage to a relationship will only serve to make it more stable and give the children of that relationship more security. Therefore marriage still gives benefits in modern society and is not outdated. (Waite 2000)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc66081850bfcd097795a5904fbcc87e",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage promotes a better way to raise children\n\nMarriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701d031be66fb685e9e762afe2cf4f80",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage is an important institution to religious people\n\nNearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae7645fc9b6c46a32b11a61b09a7d682",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.\n\nMarriage represents a commitment and a bond that is, although not unbreakable, difficult to break. This may not be appropriate for couples who wish to have a more casual relationship, however, it offers a more stable and official relationship, which is far preferable to a more transient relationship when it comes to raising a child. (Waite 2000)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24a39b0f5fc682cae97c09960f50fc0c",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship\n\nMarriage has relevance to modern society in not only an emotional, religious and practical sense but also in a legal sense. According to Sir Mark Potter in English Law marriage is regarded as an \"age-old institution\" that is \"by longstanding definition and acceptance\" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. It gives many rights in areas like property rights and pension benefits.(Travis, 2011) A marital bond gives important rights to both parties in cases of events such as severe injury, bereavement or even divorce. An institution cannot be outdated if it retains legal importance in modern society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06ea623d63a6555bca2126cb31f52c2d",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Unreasonable commitment to expect of people\n\nThe average age, in the UK, to get married is approximately 30 years old. (Office for National Statistics 1999) Life expectancy in the UK is approximately 80 years. (Office for National Statistics 1999) This means the average marriage expects people to commit to maintain a certain way of life for a period that is longer than they have actually been alive. This goes hand in hand with the rise of social acceptability of people having more than one life partner in their life to show that either marriage is an unreasonable expectation of someone or a meaningless charade that is not actually expected to be maintained.(Cherlin 2009)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8979ba7ce5abe45d6b4bb5c00cd8f618",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children\n\nAs explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children.\n\nThe existence of marriage is essentially saying that same-sex couples and single parents are less able of raising children than heterosexual couples. Marriage, therefore, can be seen to promote outdated ideals that our society no longer holds and, as such, is itself an outdated institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4007828baa192a0578a1b4daac711e57",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage\n\nWith pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics)\n\nSince the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "273dc8d5f788aa416caeed2309563a6d",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship\n\nThe main objective of marriage is often said to be bringing up children in a stable environment. However in 2010 in the UK there were 119589 divorces; 11.1 per 1000 married population. Furthermore in the same year, the median duration of a marriage remained at a low level of 11.4 years.(Rogers, 2011) This clearly does not fulfill the initial basic aim of marriage as so many marriages end In divorce with the resulting splits affecting the children. In fact, a much more stable environment can be provided by a better relationship, even without matrimonial vows (Cherlin 2009). This relationship should not have to be through marriage; rather it would simply be a partnership in the way that many couples already live today.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41d07a4595787db23fb061e0d4b1a6f0",
"text": "marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion\n\nThe proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b8927380d30abf2206b05bdc151a627d
|
The harms related to a death extend beyond the loss of life
Every person who dies leaves behind people whose lives are made dramatically worse by the loss of a loved one. The average person, by continuing to live, helps those around them in a multitude of ways: love for their family, productive enterprise, and any philanthropic behavior in which they may engage. Out of sheer sympathy for the loved ones of the dead, and others who depend on their continued survival, one ought to minimize the number who die, and thus save the five.
|
[
{
"docid": "e782866ceab945a23f06318f67cc560c",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Assessing the value of a life on the basis of family members and how much the person is worth to everyone else creates a perverse priority on those with large families and many connections. To do so makes an injunction: position yourself so that you’re important and well-connected, and suddenly you get priority when we are deciding who to save.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "25ee79ad30d1c5a8cf57dc16b7656471",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers. This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons” [1] . We are all different people, and we do not all share in the alleged benefits to maximizing total utility. For this reason, our moral intuitions reject out-of-hand many variants on “killing one to save five”; for instance, we would think it abhorrent to abduct a random person and harvest their organs in order to save five dying people, even in the absence of side effects like people now being afraid of having their organs taken. Also, see “different lives weigh differently” argument below.\n\n[1] Richardson, Henry S., ‘John Rawls (1921-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 November 2005, http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54f9066c67b70840c8abbb7c5f04589e",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb562f66c8624b8147c0d050356f8d0",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a7f864c2e4d491dbeaa9336ab39663",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Consequences do in fact matter more. People ought to be morally judged by what occurred when they had the power to decide who lives or dies; fatal non-action is just as blameworthy. This is the reason why many countries, particularly those with a civil law tradition as is the case in most of continental Europe, have Good Samaritan laws creating a legal responsibility to provide help when one can. [1] Someone who stands by and watches someone drown, even though they could have thrown them a rescue line, is rightly thought of as being no less heartless than a murderer. As Sartre put it, choosing not to act is still choosing to act. [2] Moreover, defining an “active killing” is difficult; how direct must one’s involvement in the cause of death be to constitute a killing? A prohibition on active killing overemphasizes the physical rather than the moral aspect of the choice. Finally, an absolute prohibition on killing to save a larger number soon fails to square with our moral intuitions if we crank up the numbers: if the choice is whether to kill one person in order to save five billion, then almost no one would disagree with the act.\n\n[1] The Dan Legal Network, ‘The Good Samaritan Law Across Europe’, http://www.daneurope.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c09228f3-a745-...\n\n[2] Daniels, Victor, ‘Sartre Summery’, Sonoma State University, http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/sartre%20sum.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3850e4b6d1168ef8f8091d6f691f94a1",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9325362569e070d321de2a0a1e8d0e0b",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many The moral agent’s decision will not necessarily have such wide-ranging consequences. In many cases, the matter will remain fairly quiet (even if it is reported to the police). Furthermore, this is only dubiously a “killing” if one does not adopt a deontological take on the action; it’s simply a weighing of the benefits of who can be saved. In another sense, branding it as making “killing” acceptable is misleading, because this is not a moral license to commit wanton murders, but instead a sacrifice in a situation with no bloodless answer. Moreover, even if the decision becomes public knowledge, and is defined as killing, people will recognize that the circumstances of having to make this decision were truly exceptional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8ba46da28b471da86853e2cfc8e6748",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Moral intuitions are even more unreliable than that. When the “kill one save five” dilemma is presented in the form of pulling a lever to divert a train onto a track with one person on it, most people say to do it. However, when it is presented as pushing a fat man onto the track in order to stop the train, most people say not to do it [1] . The two scenarios are morally identical; the only change is what physical act needs to be done in order to result in the one person getting hit by the train. This demonstrates that we cannot directly consult our intuitions on this question.\n\n[1] Reiner, Peter B., ‘The trolley problem and the evolution of war’, Neuroethics at the core, 11 July 2011, http://neuroethicscanada.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-trolley-problem-and-the-evolution-of-war/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "929176b00d638993ca56600c4084f0d5",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.” However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they will be saved. The only time this would not be true is if the average person had a net negative effect on the world, but if this were the case it would commit us to the implausible position that we ought to act in a manner so that the fewest people survive, which is absurd.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e89e19bfe8b9dde023febd7c57b16c5",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many All the same harms apply if the moral agent lets the five die. They still must cope with the knowledge that their decision resulted in deaths, in fact, more deaths. Indeed, PTSD is brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death [1] .\n\n[1] Martynowicz, Daniel, ‘Afghanistan PTSD Worse Than Vietnam’, News By The Second, 1 July 2010, http://newsbythesecond.com/afghanistan-ptsd-worse-than-vietnam/2857/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0324b1d6f053f9196f8d8d3cc65fb12",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible.\n\nEvery time a life is extinguished, some amount of present and future good vanishes from the world. All the good things that that person would have experienced – joy, accomplishment, delight – will no longer occur. Similarly, all the beneficially effects they will have one other people, from productively working to loving their family, will also not occur. True, people also experience unhappy times, and they sometimes negatively affect others, but in all but an exceptionally small number of cases, the net contribution of a human life to total utility is positive (indeed, if it weren’t, we probably wouldn’t consider death to be bad). Even though there will be some fluctuations in how much each life contributes to total utility – a happy doctor probably adds more utility than a miserable meter maid – it is overwhelmingly likely that saving the five lives will result in a situation of greater utility than preserving the life of the one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ffae82ff73b16b538af6934d7174ac9",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many\n\nWhile Rawls did oppose utilitarianism, he generated a hypothetical scenario that is useful, even to the utilitarian, for evaluating moral theories. Imagine that all human beings were placed in a scenario where they knew nothing about their station in the world, and know only the basic laws of reasoning and human nature. They do not know what their level of intelligence, personality traits, gender, socioeconomic status, race or religion will be, nor even when or where they will be born; they are “behind the veil of ignorance.” Every single person who will ever exist is placed in this situation at the beginning of the universe. Next, these human beings are told they will decide which rules will govern human conduct when they come to inhabit the world. In such a situation, all rational human beings would ensure that they are treated fairly no matter who they are; they will have perfect sympathy for every human being ever, because they could end up being that person. Whatever rules they come up with in this situation are the rules that are ethically correct, because these rules will never treat anyone unfairly (as that would be an irrational move). [1] So how would people in this hypothetical treat the decision whether to kill one to save five? Rational actors would agree on the rule to kill the one and save the five. After all, any given person is five times as likely to end up as a member of the five rather than as the one. Thus, behind the veil of ignorance, the rational human being would proudly prescribe “Save the five and kill the one.”\n\n[1] Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University press, 1971, p.136\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9539147e437681c620f4681eff3bf93",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible\n\nWe have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live. That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death. This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life. However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated. Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups. In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e021f0985087b1c88a5a0c727b3dd730",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many The act of killing can wreak immense psychological damage upon rational individuals\n\nTo know that one has actually killed another human being will haunt the moral agent forever. Instances of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for soldiers returning for warzones are increasingly reported, suggesting that a situation of killing very often warps the killer’s life [1] . This holds true even for people not directly and viscerally involved in killings, such as the incredible guilt felt by the team of the Manhattan project. [2]\n\n[1] ScienceBlog, ‘1 in 5 Iraq, Afghanistan Vets has PTSD’, 17 April 2008, http://scienceblog.com/15954/1-in-5-iraq-afghanistan-vets-has-ptsd-major-depression-rand/\n\n[2] Long, Tony, ‘Aug. 6, 1945: ‘I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds’, Wired, 6 August 2007, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/dayintech_0806\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b254fc9aab412389c665d632dbb619a8",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many We cannot make value judgments as to who should and should not be marked for death or for salvation\n\nDifferent people’s lives may indeed weigh differently. Some people may go on to cure cancer, while others may become serial killers. However, we do not know who will do what with their future, and it is an act of immense hubris to perform calculations that presume otherwise. We could be killing future a serial-rapist in order to save future a philanthropist who funds Somali famine-relief, but we could just as easily be doing the opposite. We are in a state of incredible ignorance as to what these individuals will choose to do. It truly is to “play god”, and vastly overestimate our ability to judge who will be good for the world and who will be bad.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7983eb50fb5d6f3b4e4df2e42463313a",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence\n\nKnowing that we have agreed that there are situations where we can decide to kill others for the greater good makes us fearful of the prospect of others visiting such judgment on us (independent of whether such an act is objectively right or wrong). Immense psychological harm accrues from knowing that other people may actively judge oneself to be worth killing for an external purpose. Moreover, an acceptance of killing tends to brutalize society and make people more receptive to the idea of killing in general, which leads human beings to behave more violently.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2816ad58bed9764aa2428ec297e2b2bf",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many It is worse to actively participate in a death then to simply allow an individual to die\n\nWhile people die all the time, it is exceptionally rare for one human being to intentionally cause the death of another, even for a perceived “greater good.” The difference is that when one actively kills, one causes the killing. They bring about something that would not otherwise have happened, and they set it in motion. What is key is the moral actor’s role in the very inception of the threat to the life of another person. Their responsibility for the resulting death is far greater than had they committed the same non-action as every other person who wasn’t present to make the decision at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29b3977657a51e72ac9a5e45db78d759",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Utilitarianism is morally demanding\n\nIf we recognize a duty to actively go out of our way (and indeed, carry the burden of killing another person) to save another person just because it’s in our power, then all sorts of new obligations open up. For instance, we are now obliged to donate all of our disposable income to charity because we could do so and each save dozens of lives a year. The reason why some religious institutions canonize people is precisely because their philanthropy is exceptional and beyond what could be expected of the average person: people like Damien of Molokai, who traveled to an island to help people suffering from leprosy, knowing that he would eventually contract the disease in the process [1] . While such actions may be praiseworthy, it is implausible that they would be morally obligatory.\n\n[1] Donadio, Rachel, ‘Benedict Canonizes 5 New Saints’, The New York Times, 11 October 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/world/europe/12pope.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3516d819e244cd6c81474327442620f9",
"text": "morality house would kill one save many Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong\n\nWhile simply consulting our moral intuitions case-by-case is not always reliable (indeed many people have contradictory moral intuitions), certain moral intuitions are needed in order to morally theorize. If a moral theory was impeccably well thought out, but prescribed actions completely at odds with our moral intuitions (such as advocating indiscriminate assault and robbery), then we would rightly dismiss it out of hand. When it comes to killing, our intuition prohibiting it is foundational and widely held.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
65ea8d189995579150f281c858b910af
|
Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict
Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]
Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.
[1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)
[2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "29227aa1ce16e81577150dbb013bbcf4",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4901b4b4bd0173135aac2d2300ba153b",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national security as is the case elsewhere. It would simply be based on the recognition that our security is best secured by having other countries that are equally tolerant towards all faiths with the attendant peaceful relations and cooperation this brings in their international relations.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "809096aa324b9366a2347c4c531e5cf4",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resulted in regimes becoming less cooperative even when the policy is a success. For example the transition in Egypt has changed the country from being a key ally of the United States to a nation that is increasingly Islamist and potentially a threat to another key ally, Israel. Now 77% of Egyptians say \"The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved.\" [1]\n\n[1] Rogin, Josh, ‘New Poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 19 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f12c25aaa25c2281bb7f2a9c691315",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.\n\nIf we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.\n\nThis leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?\n\n[1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbbbef4b16e0d75c8b0a0ed924ff25eb",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]\n\nIt is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]\n\nFinally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.\n\n[1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001\n\n[2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006\n\n[3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "897c1c6ed736100006829932ced8ee90",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.\n\n[1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09d1148dd52b430568eb27c6e0d45cb",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general Religion does not motivate foreign policy\n\nReligion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.\n\nNations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]\n\nWith religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.\n\n[1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012\n\n[2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d027c192c0222361a281b2ee2d7ff79d",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered\n\nOf course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.\n\nMoreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.\n\n[1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012\n\n[2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7321ab672bbeaef5ea5c5acb2849b1f",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict\n\nWhile there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.\n\n[1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.\n\n[2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20 September 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-findings.aspx http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-methodology.aspx\n\n[3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db6aa3a4eae4ccfdf22cff751ebd6ffa",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society\n\nDemocratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.\n\n[1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.\n\n[2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1\n\n[3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21ac734d42da286715c3683e98e40439",
"text": "ch debate living difference international global religion religion general It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat\n\nThere is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where “religious freedoms may be suppressed”. [1] All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. As William Inboden notes “Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests... Stated simply: There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States.” [2] Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy.\n\n[1] Statement, Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regarding religious freedom, U.S. Department of State, 6 October 1999, (near the end)\n\n[2] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9bc04eb04c63bf9df4a23793d7b258e9
|
Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage
To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones.
1 Bidstrup, S. (2009, June 3). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Bidstrup:
|
[
{
"docid": "81a6b33bd17245f6d0a0fcf759e4b12a",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Many of the fiscal benefits enjoyed by married couples (e.g. child support payments) are not geared towards encouraging marriages in itself, but to promote the existence of the conventional family and procreation. Gay couples, unable to propagate society, should not be provided access to the benefits of marriage which are, implicitly, the state's reward for reproductive couples. 'Collecting a dead spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy' are just a few of the benefits a state provides to married couples 1. The aforementioned benefits should not be applicable to couples who are unable to provide anything in return.\n\n1 Kolasinksi, A. (2004, February 20). The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Tech\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "29cf8046ca79190f8f6ae3ed2583e6cf",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.\n\n1.Somerville, 2003, p.1\n\n2.ibid.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa46cbfa6214e23729525fef485b064e",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay relationships do not contribute to the interest of the state in propagating society, therefore they should not be granted access to the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Furthermore, as David Blankenhorn argues, 'for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other'1. In addition, Susan Shell believes that 'most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement can be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage'2. The presence of civil partnerships, potentially celebrated with the same festivities that surround weddings, could provide many of the same legal and fiscal benefits that gay couples currently do not have access to.\n\n1 Blankenhorn, D. (2008, September 19). Protecting marriage to protect children. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Los Angeles Times:\n\n2 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce1d2a448096a0b30749a92e6e6973fb",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry States cannot ask registrars to conduct civil marriages between homosexual couples that violate their religious precepts. How can a state that espouses multi-culturalism and respect for the faiths of its citizens thereafter declare it fair and impartial to ask a Christian registrar to conduct a homosexual marriage ceremony, and thereafter fire them if they refuse? That merely replaces one discrimination with another. In the United Kingdom in 2009, a Christian registrar was demoted to a receptionist after refusing to preside over the civil marriages of gay couples1. Ms Davies, the demoted registrar, said: \"Britain is supposed to be a nation that respects freedom of conscience\"1. That freedom of conscience is not respected in a state that can fire anyone refusing to marry same-sex couples.\n\n1 Millard, N. & Moore-Bridger, B. (2009, June 22) Gay marriage case registrar in legal battle. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from London Evening Standard:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6eb4ed285451dccb0a46a51e12c6ec00",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is most certainly about raising children and has always been regarded as the predominant means of creating a conducive environment in which children can be brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them. It is true that many heterosexual marriages do not result in offspring, through choice or infertility, however the male-female relationship preserves the general rule of marriage: only between those with the potential for procreation1. 'Children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents', to encourage otherwise is to undermine long-held perceptions about the right way to bring up our youth.2\n\n1 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:\n\n2 Somerville, M. A. (2003, April 29). The Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriage'. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59dcd7160e07c0e9f65f4259393f59e0",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.\n\n1. Sullivan, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9a6b76325ed4f9942d653fd39345deb",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion.\n\n1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c969c3335c9e526b19fc60af800f7281",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.\n\nMarriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.\n\n1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e4ea1bed6a307defba541b792a4e756",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed marriage. As Theodore Olson points out, 'a civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married'1. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.\n\n1 Olson, T., & Schneiderman, E. (2011, May 16). The civil union bait-and-switch: Compromise is far from true marriage equality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from NY Daily News:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35446552b740171612095be16d1feaf3",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry\n\nOne of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality.\n\n1.The Economist, 1996\n\n2.Olson, 2010\n\n3. Black, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d5210d3434dafb3bb2823817290f5ba",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples\n\nThe state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars could be thereafter forced, by the state and their commitment to the law, to legally bind themselves to avoid discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples who ask for their service. All registrars who refused to marry homosexual couples could be fired. There could be no difference in the process or the paperwork required for either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. The dismissal of discriminating registrants would have a legal precedent in the charges brought upon hotel owners who refused gay couples and adoption agencies who refused to deal with gay couples.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e933963cd5122cd4ed15136dd4d279",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.\n\nIt is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e433cbbc3e521c2ce3ffe95a113a69ac",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay marriage is good for society\n\nGay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness.\n\n1. Ott, (2005)\n\n2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, (2007), p.25\n\n3. Kostigen, (2009)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baf9ae2a9f282888d1549ba13b32afb7",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay couples can declare their union without resort to marriage\n\nThere are alternative means for gay couples to formalize their love without resort to marriage. In the United Kingdom, gay couples are able to form civil partnerships, which offer all the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage without the actual ceremony. Moreover, also known as the \"love contract\", the registration of the union of gay couples has been carried out successfully in countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain. Both of these would be avenues for gay couples to declare their union to the world. The practice in countries which implement this system is to allow registered couples to be entitled to joint insurance coverage and to allow them to file for joint tax returns as well as inheritance and tenants' rights. On the other hand, such a proposal makes no incursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage itself, thereby proving acceptable to the religious sections of society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b6879d4f7b6fb99a775451327a83c0b",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality\n\nMarriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend the right to marry to gay couples. In Christianity, the Bible is clear in Genesis that marriage is between that of a man and a woman; ‘it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him…a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ 1. In the Quran, it is stated that ‘Allah has given you spouses of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons’ 2. There is little room for conjecture with such statements; marriage, so finely entwined with the religious roots of modern societies, renders marriage an institution between a man and a woman.\n\n1.Catholic Answers, 2004\n\n2. Eldin, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb8ae2c444e74a3bb0301c8d0ea632df",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates\n\nThe legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is started, leading to a rise in out of wedlock births. As Stanley Kurtz discovered in a study of Norway, where gay marriage is legal, 'an extraordinary 82.7% of first-born children' in one specific county were born out of wedlock; he goes on to explain 'many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabitating, couples'. Yet, without the bonds of marriage, such couples are two to three times more likely to break up and leave children thereafter to cope with estranged parents1. The most conservative religious counties in Norway, in comparison, 'have by far the lowest rates' of out-of-wedlock births1. The legalization of gay marriage and the, often concurrent, ban on clergy eager to discourage the practise of out-of-wedlock only serves to undermine the institution of marriage; and it is the children that pay the price.\n\n1 Kurtz, S. (2004, February 2). Slipping toward Scandinavia. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from National Review:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8caecdc56be885b516230da10936f8b",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage should be between a man and a woman\n\nMarriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required before procreation, requires a man and a woman. Barack Obama, whilst on the presidential campaign trial, reaffirmed his personal belief that marriage 'is between a man and a woman', one that he shared with the majority of candidates1. Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children.\n\n1 Elsworth, C. (2008, November 3). Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Telegraph:\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3659bcc00e809ed51e8fe60db37f28da
|
Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.
It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false.
|
[
{
"docid": "6eb4ed285451dccb0a46a51e12c6ec00",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is most certainly about raising children and has always been regarded as the predominant means of creating a conducive environment in which children can be brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them. It is true that many heterosexual marriages do not result in offspring, through choice or infertility, however the male-female relationship preserves the general rule of marriage: only between those with the potential for procreation1. 'Children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents', to encourage otherwise is to undermine long-held perceptions about the right way to bring up our youth.2\n\n1 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:\n\n2 Somerville, M. A. (2003, April 29). The Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriage'. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "81a6b33bd17245f6d0a0fcf759e4b12a",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Many of the fiscal benefits enjoyed by married couples (e.g. child support payments) are not geared towards encouraging marriages in itself, but to promote the existence of the conventional family and procreation. Gay couples, unable to propagate society, should not be provided access to the benefits of marriage which are, implicitly, the state's reward for reproductive couples. 'Collecting a dead spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy' are just a few of the benefits a state provides to married couples 1. The aforementioned benefits should not be applicable to couples who are unable to provide anything in return.\n\n1 Kolasinksi, A. (2004, February 20). The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Tech\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29cf8046ca79190f8f6ae3ed2583e6cf",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.\n\n1.Somerville, 2003, p.1\n\n2.ibid.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa46cbfa6214e23729525fef485b064e",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay relationships do not contribute to the interest of the state in propagating society, therefore they should not be granted access to the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Furthermore, as David Blankenhorn argues, 'for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other'1. In addition, Susan Shell believes that 'most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement can be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage'2. The presence of civil partnerships, potentially celebrated with the same festivities that surround weddings, could provide many of the same legal and fiscal benefits that gay couples currently do not have access to.\n\n1 Blankenhorn, D. (2008, September 19). Protecting marriage to protect children. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Los Angeles Times:\n\n2 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce1d2a448096a0b30749a92e6e6973fb",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry States cannot ask registrars to conduct civil marriages between homosexual couples that violate their religious precepts. How can a state that espouses multi-culturalism and respect for the faiths of its citizens thereafter declare it fair and impartial to ask a Christian registrar to conduct a homosexual marriage ceremony, and thereafter fire them if they refuse? That merely replaces one discrimination with another. In the United Kingdom in 2009, a Christian registrar was demoted to a receptionist after refusing to preside over the civil marriages of gay couples1. Ms Davies, the demoted registrar, said: \"Britain is supposed to be a nation that respects freedom of conscience\"1. That freedom of conscience is not respected in a state that can fire anyone refusing to marry same-sex couples.\n\n1 Millard, N. & Moore-Bridger, B. (2009, June 22) Gay marriage case registrar in legal battle. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from London Evening Standard:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59dcd7160e07c0e9f65f4259393f59e0",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.\n\n1. Sullivan, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9a6b76325ed4f9942d653fd39345deb",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion.\n\n1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c969c3335c9e526b19fc60af800f7281",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.\n\nMarriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.\n\n1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e4ea1bed6a307defba541b792a4e756",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed marriage. As Theodore Olson points out, 'a civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married'1. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.\n\n1 Olson, T., & Schneiderman, E. (2011, May 16). The civil union bait-and-switch: Compromise is far from true marriage equality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from NY Daily News:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9f7a2e385a083d63c29fe9dc24a2652",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage\n\nTo allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones.\n\n1 Bidstrup, S. (2009, June 3). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Bidstrup:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35446552b740171612095be16d1feaf3",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry\n\nOne of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality.\n\n1.The Economist, 1996\n\n2.Olson, 2010\n\n3. Black, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d5210d3434dafb3bb2823817290f5ba",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples\n\nThe state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars could be thereafter forced, by the state and their commitment to the law, to legally bind themselves to avoid discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples who ask for their service. All registrars who refused to marry homosexual couples could be fired. There could be no difference in the process or the paperwork required for either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. The dismissal of discriminating registrants would have a legal precedent in the charges brought upon hotel owners who refused gay couples and adoption agencies who refused to deal with gay couples.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e433cbbc3e521c2ce3ffe95a113a69ac",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay marriage is good for society\n\nGay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness.\n\n1. Ott, (2005)\n\n2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, (2007), p.25\n\n3. Kostigen, (2009)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baf9ae2a9f282888d1549ba13b32afb7",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay couples can declare their union without resort to marriage\n\nThere are alternative means for gay couples to formalize their love without resort to marriage. In the United Kingdom, gay couples are able to form civil partnerships, which offer all the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage without the actual ceremony. Moreover, also known as the \"love contract\", the registration of the union of gay couples has been carried out successfully in countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain. Both of these would be avenues for gay couples to declare their union to the world. The practice in countries which implement this system is to allow registered couples to be entitled to joint insurance coverage and to allow them to file for joint tax returns as well as inheritance and tenants' rights. On the other hand, such a proposal makes no incursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage itself, thereby proving acceptable to the religious sections of society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b6879d4f7b6fb99a775451327a83c0b",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality\n\nMarriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend the right to marry to gay couples. In Christianity, the Bible is clear in Genesis that marriage is between that of a man and a woman; ‘it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him…a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ 1. In the Quran, it is stated that ‘Allah has given you spouses of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons’ 2. There is little room for conjecture with such statements; marriage, so finely entwined with the religious roots of modern societies, renders marriage an institution between a man and a woman.\n\n1.Catholic Answers, 2004\n\n2. Eldin, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb8ae2c444e74a3bb0301c8d0ea632df",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates\n\nThe legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is started, leading to a rise in out of wedlock births. As Stanley Kurtz discovered in a study of Norway, where gay marriage is legal, 'an extraordinary 82.7% of first-born children' in one specific county were born out of wedlock; he goes on to explain 'many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabitating, couples'. Yet, without the bonds of marriage, such couples are two to three times more likely to break up and leave children thereafter to cope with estranged parents1. The most conservative religious counties in Norway, in comparison, 'have by far the lowest rates' of out-of-wedlock births1. The legalization of gay marriage and the, often concurrent, ban on clergy eager to discourage the practise of out-of-wedlock only serves to undermine the institution of marriage; and it is the children that pay the price.\n\n1 Kurtz, S. (2004, February 2). Slipping toward Scandinavia. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from National Review:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8caecdc56be885b516230da10936f8b",
"text": "marriage society gender family house would allow gay couples marry Marriage should be between a man and a woman\n\nMarriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required before procreation, requires a man and a woman. Barack Obama, whilst on the presidential campaign trial, reaffirmed his personal belief that marriage 'is between a man and a woman', one that he shared with the majority of candidates1. Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children.\n\n1 Elsworth, C. (2008, November 3). Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Telegraph:\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e26af8767644ea891c0f5c088afed0c5
|
Opposed by much of the Church
In spite of the Catholic Church's ruling, a huge number of people who identify as Catholic do not adhere to the Church's teachings on contraception. Additionally, many Catholic priests and nuns openly support non-abortive forms of contraception, including barrier contraception. In 2003 a poll found 43% of catholic priests in England and wales were against the church's stance and a further 19% were unsure1. The Church should listen to the requests and opinions of those who are part of it 2. 1 Day, Elizabeth. "Most Catholic priests 'do not support Rome over contraception'." The Telegraph, 6 April 2003, 2 Short, Claire. "HIV/AIDS
|
[
{
"docid": "7f0afcf3bb2da4f18a4d54da8c494c5c",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The opposition makes no mention of the huge numbers of Catholics who actually support the Church's decision to forbid barrier contraception. There is by no means a clear majority either way. Even if there was a clear majority of Catholics in favour of barrier contraception, the Church is under no obligation to change its official stances or any part of the way it works based on the opinions of members of the Church. The Church is founded on the basis that it is doing God's bidding and changing its working based on the demand of the people would undermine that.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6fd6e66a1b5608ae96b70c18dd51e557",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Radical changes risk stability of the Catholic Church. As outlined in the main proposition case, rather than making the Catholic Church seem as if it can move with the times, suddenly changing its stance on barrier contraception would make the Church seem weak and would lose a lot of its support. Since their stance on barrier contraception is something that the Catholic Church has stood by for a huge number of years suddenly moving on it would throw their conviction on everything into question and would have a severe negative effect on the stability of the Church.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e4a000c6f00ee55729bb3c0adb3217a",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes This would not protect wives. In these situations the wife would be expected to have unprotected sex, so that the couple could conceive a child, even if the Church condoned the use of contraception. If a husband contracts HIV, the Catholic Church condoning or forbidding the use of condoms makes absolutely no difference to the fact that his wife is very likely to contract it also. The only action by the Church that would affect this would be to try and highlight the fact that sex outside of marriage is also forbidden to a greater degree and allowing the use of contraception would only weaken this message.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f936e9a36945835f297edb78c6f9c84d",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes The Catholic Church also forbids sex outside of marriage. The opposition has tried to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church actually does not allow sex outside of marriage either. It is not a case of the Church saying it is acceptable to have casual sex as long as contraception is not used but saying that neither is acceptable. If abstinence were practised, there would be no HIV epidemic. Since the Church preaches abstinence outside of marriage it cannot be held accountable for the HIV epidemic.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d6d6a068d0f439dffb27731fdaa6902",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4ab31ef23be5f15320e236006d6da2",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes More casual sex with barrier contraception is preferable to the current amount without contraception. The amount of consensual sex is not going to change no matter what the church teaches. As long as the use of barrier contraception was promoted along with this promotion of casual sex, it would be a huge net reduction in the cases of contraction of HIV. Therefore, condoning the use of barrier contraception would be the more responsible stand to take on the part of the Catholic Church.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ee097d5b6eba0435d051f3022383860",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes This is a wilful interpretation of a highly ambiguous passage. The Church's belief that barrier contraception is against God is based entirely on a single passage of the Bible where Onan is condemned for wilfully 'spilling his seed.'1Importantly, the fact that he spilled his seed alone was not even the main reason that he was condemned. It is well within the power of the Catholic Church to officially change their belief that using barrier contraception will send people to Hell and allow its use. Since the passage is ambiguous, the decision should be made based on what is best for society and the Church as a whole. The opposition believes that in their main case they have proved that the Church lifting their ban on barrier methods of contraception would be better for society and therefore they believe they have won the debate. 138:9-10, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10c50a66092b64bc91fe54881680702d",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes The commandment given is to 'go forth and multiply', not to multiply as much as possible with no thought for sustainability. Contraception can help monogamous couples control the amount of children they have and when so that they can ensure they don't have more children than they can sustainably provide for. The idea that any limitation of procreation is against God is a single interpretation of a very ambiguous passage. The Catholic Church has the freedom to choose the interpretation that is best for humanity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79ff838f93d461d7da551d06c0ce8edd",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "120f4966eb445292f4e7dd0598222cfe",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes The Catholic Church already has huge numbers of people leaving, this could help stop that. The Catholic Church is already becoming increasingly unpopular because of its refusal to compromise on any issue and its inability to adapt and change to keep up with an ever changing world. Rather than damage the stability of the Church, allowing barrier contraception would show that the Church is capable of change when change is necessary. Importantly, when the Church of England allowed women to become bishops, it caused some tension at the time but had no long term negative impact on the stability of the Church.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf70e186edef2fa8ed757f3304f1adfe",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Birth control within monogamous relationships.\n\nContraception is not just used in casual sex but within monogamous couples who want to control when they have children. The reason for this could be so they ensure that they don’t have more children than they can afford to reasonably look after.\n\nContraception can help monogamous couples to give more to the children they do decide to have and to the community, since less of their time and money will be used in maintaining a family which is larger than they can reasonably afford to control. The current cost of raising a child in Britain is calculated to be over £210,000, a very substantial sum that any responsible parent must think about before having more children 1.\n\nSince, in this case, contraception promotes a good in the community, as well as more responsible reproduction, the Catholic Church is unjustified in its blanket ban over barrier contraception.\n\n1. Insley 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "380d308187e986ea83292d11d256796c",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes In contradiction to the Catholic Church's responsibility to promote life.\n\nMany Catholic countries in Africa and South America have huge problems with AIDS and HIV with thousands of people dying as a result. In a survey carried out in 20091, it was found that in sub-Saharan Africa 22.5 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and 1.3 million people died of AIDS. An enormous number of these people contracted HIV because they did not use a condom during intercourse, under the advice of the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that the Catholic Church's stance on barrier contraception promotes the spread of AIDS. The opposition also believes that since the Catholic Church are in a position of power over a colossal number of people, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of those people. They must, therefore, reduce the likelihood that the people that they have power over will die as much as they can. Their ban over the use of barrier contraception is not in line with this responsibility. 1 UNAIDS global report.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd9d14c172ff0909b57b69e9e1274cf6",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Promotes image of Catholic Church as uncaring and stubborn.\n\nOrganised religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, around the world, regardless of faith and denomination, change their official stances in an effort to keep up with a changing world. For example, the Church of England allowing women to become bishops. In doing this, these groups show that they are able to be reactive and can fit into a world that changes every day. Even the Catholic church has begun to realise that by stubbornly refusing to change its stance, the Catholic Church presents itself as unable to adapt and stuck in its ways 1. As a result, it finds that it will lose a lot of its influence and, by extension, its propensity to do good. Since its stance on contraception limits the Church's ability to do good, then it is clearly a stance that generally causes harm and, therefore, is an unjustified one.\n\n1.Wynne-Jones 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ac105fafdce68605d00dd5ce9b4da72",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Barrier contraception can protect women from husbands with AIDS/HIV.\n\nThere are many cases, particularly in South America and Africa, of men contracting HIV from sexual partners outside their marriage, be it from before they were married or from an extramarital affair and passing it on to their wives. In cases such as these, the wife may follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and still contract HIV. If the Church did not forbid the use of barrier contraception then the frequency of occurrences such as these would be severely limited. Since, as discussed above, the Catholic Church, has a responsibility to promote life in its people, their ban of barrier contraception is unjustified.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "738ca7cfdb4a1c5ba1efd484a921612c",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Going back on this rule would promote casual sex\n\nCondoning the use of barrier methods of contraception would be implicitly condoning casual sex since their primary function is within that context. This is particularly important since the Catholic Church's teachings on casual sex are not taken particularly seriously already. Any action, such as the Catholic Church allowing the use of barrier contraception, that would promote casual sex in countries with severe AIDS/HIV problems, would be an incredibly irresponsible one. Pope Paul VI argued that when considering \"the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.\" The Church's current stance on barrier contraception, therefore, is the most responsible one1. 1 Pope Paul VI. \"Humanae Vitae.\" 1968.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f292e007c56a27eff7065098752c078",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Protects people from spending eternity in Hell.\n\nIt is important to remember that the Catholic Church believe that barrier contraception is against God and that using it will condemn people to Hell. Therefore, even if the Church's stance on condoms is harmful, which the proposition does not accept that it is, it is less harmful than people spending an eternity suffering. In this context, therefore, the most responsible thing for the Catholic Church to do is to forbid the use of condoms and, thereby, save people from Hell1. 1 Pope Paul VI. \"Humanae Vitae.\" 1968.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad6f3bed8a0c8f357e3e2ebaa10d19c3",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes In context of other teachings, does not promote the spread of AIDS/HIV.\n\nThe Catholic Church does not only forbid the use of barrier contraception but also of casual sex. The issue is not that the Church is being irresponsible by banning the use of barrier contraception but that people are choosing to follow some of the Church's teachings but not others. Pope Benedict XVI argues AIDS is \"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems\"1. If people followed the Church's teachings on casual sex as well as their teachings on barrier contraception, the AIDS epidemic would be dramatically decreased. Given, therefore, that it also forbids any sex outside of marriage, the Catholic Church is totally justified in forbidding barrier methods of contraception2. 1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. \"The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift.\" The Telegraph, 20 November 2010, 2 Pope John Paul II. \"Evangelium Vitae.\" 1995.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a123cba96a2c496c3ef0e7fe979ad322",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church.\n\nWhenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. \"Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history.\" Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c0d814a4c6e682965a14a093a18d3b6",
"text": "sease sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes The Catholic Church believes that any limitation of procreation is against God.\n\nCatholics consider the first commandment given to them by God to be to 'multiply'1. In light of this, anything that limits procreation, be it the use of contraception or even condoning the use of contraception, is against God. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church's primary obligation is not to its people but to God. The Church is, therefore, justified in any action where the alternative is going against what they believe to be the wishes of God, even if it is harmful to the people of the Church. 11:28, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3d077291c35d9c93689675e9df71c4e5
|
The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime
The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons. This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism. Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral.
There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia. The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance. [i]
Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons. [ii] Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized.
[i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4708312.stm
[ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569
|
[
{
"docid": "efa556b9f8458bb36858e58c6e9bda84",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech. [i]\n\nFurthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes. There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities. Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group.\n\n[i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601650.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "42a02117c71c30d431e134f5447c23a4",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s.\n\nIt also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals. We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either.\n\nAs the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words. That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.” [i]\n\n[i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/danish_book_about_muhammad_cartoon_9EU68NwfmSaTSvK3hAiqiP\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9f6361ea40ff6f1bb5fabffa4530457",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for. This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things. If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety.\n\nBut anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bc247c364fd82803bc392ecca63a0f9",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods. Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord.\n\nDenmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world. Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ab2d1a1b7cbeb6a8f2ad17f26bfbf7",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "885023c58066f6dae35cf2c81adacdef",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons This has not benefitted integration, but rather made Muslims in Denmark feel as though they are under assault and unwelcome in their country. Particularly for new or newer immigrants, this creates a tendency to form enclave communities around a shared religion or culture and resist the mainstream society as a bloc. All the Muslim organizations in Denmark banded together against their oppressors. The few Muslims that spoke out in defence of free speech were severely ostracized by their fellows.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2294e6037fa43b5ba708e1dc236e4c41",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons In as volatile an atmosphere as 2000s Europe, where rates of immigration from Muslim countries into an aging Europe are high, it is clearly not wise to openly antagonize a component of your population that is already having a great deal of difficulty integrating. Unlike America, Europe generally cracks down on a variety of xenophobic and hateful actions much more stringently, and should have in this case as well. Europe is a sufficiently enlightened place to restrict individuals from burning crosses or marching in salute to the Nazi party; one would hope these practices would extend to Islam as well. There therefore in some instances is to a certain extent a right not to be offended – or at least not to have certain offensive things publicized.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d8cdac00ce950ddd5513227ddfa416a",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons There is a difference between a government banning art, and having the good sense not to do certain things in art. Further, the “artistic skill” in drawing a provocative cartoon is rather minimal; it is not as though cartoonists are held to particularly high technical standards of drawing. Rather, cartoons are usually a vehicle by which a cartoonist conveys a joke (usually at someone or some group’s expense) for a cheap laugh. Cartoons no more constitute art than graffiti with an offensive statement on a factory wall constitutes art – that is to say, not at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84523acc7b33dda704b262ebeee326ce",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Violent reactions to the cartoons could have been predicted and should have been avoided\n\nPrinting the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world. [i] The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world. As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in.\n\nOrganized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union. [ii] Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result.\n\nRegardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing.\n\n[i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001822.html\n\n[ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031902603.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "266f1dfbcc79e88d6d8a60f75eb411b2",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Radical and anti western voices in Islamic communities gained authority and legitimacy as a result of the newspapers' actions\n\nThe publication of the cartoons empowered the radical fringes of many Muslim populations, by enabling them to point to the cartoons as tangible evidence of an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim agenda in the West. [i] For instance, in Pakistan, these were used against the president, General Pervez Musharraf, who was perceived as being too closely aligned with the United States. Religious leaders who wanted to make the case that Denmark was deliberately offensive and a hostile environment for Muslims were able to conflate popular knowledge about the cartoon controversy with other incidents (some of them not even in Denmark) and sway support to their anti-ecumenical causes. [ii]\n\nThis set back reasonable discourse in Muslim communities about how best to integrate with the West, and ultimately resulted in the weakening of internal forces that encourage acceptance of Western culture. Such a reversal for westernising forces is likely the opposite of what the newspaper would have wanted for the Muslim world.\n\n[i] Witte, Griff, ‘Opportunists Make Use of Cartoon Protests’, The Washington Post, 9 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802296_2.html\n\n[ii] ‘Background: Muhammad cartoons controversy’, EuropeNews, http://europenews.dk/en/node/7143\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a42c2768f6837f7cf9c1eb8e564f5205",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Factors motivating publication of the cartoons\n\nOn the individual level, the cartoonists and editors would have been wiser to look to their own selfish motivations for self-preservation; they have received many death threats from religious leaders and organizations spanning the globe, in a situation reminiscent of Salman Rushdie’s publication of The Satanic Verses. That Rushdie’s book had met with a similar reaction means that it should have served as a precedent showing what the reaction would be. As the editors should have been able to anticipate the threats they would receive if they were interested in their safety they should not have published.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08ce296346699ac702543451eab44db6",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Chilling effects of excessive cultural sensitivity\n\nArt should be given a great deal of license. Many European and American media and art outlets create art or journalistic pieces that are offensive to or poorly received by Christians and Jews, or other minorities. By limiting discourse in the form of art, we risk not only unjustly suppressing the artists’ vision, but also cheapening and the artistic community and rendering it more homogenous. Satire has been used with extreme effectiveness in making political statements before, and this was no exception. The cartoons express the cartoonists’ own views and beliefs, and the newspaper was simply providing a medium, not dictating what they should draw.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e703185a7bfb4c33fa10c2b7b72b0bfe",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Controversy, integration and civic participation\n\nThe controversy has actually resulted in a much higher degree of civic participation by Danish Muslims than had previously been achieved, including town hall-style meetings, opinion columns, and radio and TV debates. This may have been better than anything else at integrating the Muslim community in Denmark into Western liberal democratic norms of how to resolve conflicts. Just because violence happened elsewhere in the world, where democracy does not currently hold sway, does not mean this was not a victory for Denmark. [i]\n\n[i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41fe5d547647649815d9eea2778fb0e2",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Free expression and journalistic integrity\n\nPublishing the cartoons was not only an important expression of press freedom, but fulfils the fundamental journalistic mission of exposing the public to important information, by forcing the examination of topics that would otherwise go unexamined. Self-censorship in Islam is an important issue that deserves consideration by a democratic public. There is a clear norm that causes Islam and Muhammad to be treated differently in the Western press than the Christian or Jewish faiths or their leading figures, and the editors felt it was important to violate that norm as a demonstration of a social phenomenon. [i] They were well within their rights to do so, and this furthered legitimate discourse about religion within Denmark and the West. It should also be remembered that demonization of Israel and the West using Christian and Jewish figures is not uncommon in the Islamic press – this is therefore a pernicious double standard. [ii]\n\nUltimately, the reaction by Muslims was unfortunate, but itself indicated the ways in which Islamic religious depictions in the press differ from their Christian and Jewish counterparts. Christian and Jewish groups have not responded with violence (though they have also sometimes staged protests), and where incidents have taken place, they were isolated and nowhere near the scale of the cartoons controversy.\n\n[i] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4677976.stm\n\n[ii] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4677976.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de9c4eaf3d390be4aa2f4b732bddfaf1",
"text": "edia religion religions thb danish newspapers should not have published cartoons Citizens of western liberal democracies should never be required to adhere to religious norms that they do not hold\n\nThere is no right not to be offended. It is one thing to show a religion respect. One respects Islam by removing shoes when visiting a mosque. However, following the taboos of a particular religion in public society does not constitute respect, but submission, and adherence to the principles of that religion, which is never required. The nature of a democratic society is that there will sometimes be disagreements about how individuals should act; insofar as Denmark has not democratically come to the conclusion that it would be better for it to be illegal to depict the prophet Mohammed in publications, it is permitted and that right must hold. [i]\n\n[i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ab7664707cd9b359d2f77f0a32268b97
|
The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.
95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism. [1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years. [2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process. [3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith [4] . Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science.
[1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”.
[2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.
[3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1).
[4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
|
[
{
"docid": "0ac4475996773ae17b9976748aac26ed",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community \"knows\" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ede2e4bd3a24dd9873d6fd308d61f780",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54ab3bd8bfaefea5bb90d558b6344f80",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence \"proving\" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf9c8e3eecd17427356787fc6dab0d5",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52aa2dfa6e8d7e2cf1365cab85368e2",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say \"Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles.\" [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren.\n\n[1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a760f5e6a8e31632c38f39059aa30d5",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given \"equal time\", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped.\n\n[1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8da88259c6259cd761035414a4f886a8",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with \"the designer did it\". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c345bd5956cc87588e821f04bf1420fd",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function. [1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator.\n\n[1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a6e93285c34beac1d4eb11f99ad1484",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm.\n\n[1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73a1c3d58f75faeb23f53c873fadb749",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.\n\nScientific enquiry is, at its core, a search for truth [1] . It is about shining light in dark places. Dogmatic adherence to beliefs in spite of evidence, and even trying to cover up facts that contradict those beliefs is academically dishonest and intellectually facile. Evolution is proven fact, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of all biology. Nothing in biology makes any sense unless considered in the context of evolution. Schools should teach this fact, not the pseudoscience of religious demagogues. It is a fundamental attack on children's rights to subject them to false information for the sake of upholding outdated and disproved beliefs. It is a right of all people to have a valuable education, because good education is required to be able to take part in the democratic process, to be able to make informed decisions. That right is compromised when the educational system gives them a worthless education in untruths, like Creationism, because informed decisions must be based on fact, and must be objective the way science is, rather than loaded with religious undertones, that skew ones view of the facts. The value of education is only as good as its applicability, either directly or through its fostering of critical thinking. So, when the political process is used to circumvent the curriculum set by teachers and experts, who actually know the subjects they are talking about, and replacing them with the curriculum set by a scientifically illiterate political body, the children suffer as the quality of their education decreases.\n\n[1] Pauling, Linus. 1983. No More War! New York: Dodd Mead.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "106e8cc361b0b4db693f30d23bf7c49e",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality.\n\nCreationism is, by definition, not science. It is not based in any empirical evidence. Rather, Creationists start with a presupposed answer and work back from it. They assume there is a designer, so they look for holes in evolutionary theory and claim only a designer can explain the gaps. When new evidence arises that gives a natural explanation of the phenomenon in question, the Creationists backpedal and start looking for new holes. No amount of evidence could convince a Creationist because his belief is not based on evidence, but rather on a usually religion-driven opposition to evolution on a political and belief level. A science proves itself through experimentation and submitting research for peer review. Creationism fears scrutiny by real scientists. Instead supporters of creationism attempt to further its agenda through politics and courts, where science is not the main goal, but popularity and where expertise is not in science but in law (Dawkins, 2006). Creationism couches itself in the language of science and does its best to look respectable in the eyes of the public. For example, in rebranding as Intelligent Design, Creationists sought to appear less overtly religious. These attempts show the illegitimacy of Creationism. The pseudoscience of Creationism must, for the sake of education, be kept out of the classroom.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a702633dd549310f567f8db21522afee",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.\n\nCreationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom.\n\n[1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\n[2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.\n\n[3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a845710e0a5998dbe7a1bc19ba5964b",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.\n\nThe opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations [1] . For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism.\n\n[1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed499f94d861ee09e7aa07313e8901a2",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.\n\nSociety is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.\n\n[1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.\n\n[2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88cb7680e6997b8e2be3737dec0d6ed7",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.\n\nNature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the \"motor\" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design.\n\n[1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5e8973cb233b32cbdc4771b1c312e1",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.\n\nMany scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world [1] . Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools.\n\n[1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8691799e4e75edffcc34b7682f4255d1",
"text": " primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.\n\nCreationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer.\n\n[1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
774500ce378bff1f1fd2f343fe501194
|
Property rights for cohabiting couples will undermine the institution of marriage
Property rights for unmarried couples undermine marriage as an institution, harming society. The societal shift away from marriage is harmful. Marriages tend to be more stable than cohabitation because of the greater level of commitment involved: the mutual support of a marriage is beneficial for individuals and can create a more secure environment for raising children. Because of the higher exit costs (divorce is difficult and time-consuming), married couples are more likely to resolve their problems than cohabiting couples who can walk away more easily. Giving legal rights to cohabiting couples endorses more diverse relationships, suggesting that marriage is less important. This is harmful as it is likely in the long term to further reduce the number of marriages, leading to fewer stable relationships.
|
[
{
"docid": "91e0b8b57186a95c1b721cf066d9d55d",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish Marriage is no longer the only type of serious long-term relationship and the law should reflect this: the absence of property rights on separation for cohabiting couples sends a message to society that cohabitation is a less meaningful relationship than marriage. Marriage has strong religious connotations and was historically a vehicle for the oppression of women. It is consequently unsurprising that some couples may not wish to enter into the institution of marriage. These couples can still have long-term relationships which are just as stable as marriage. Legal rights would help to validate such relationships and recognise the reality of diverse family structures within society. Furthermore, the status quo can be seen to be coercive in that individuals, who may not want to get married, are forced to do so if they wish to have legal rights.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d4e474f3f9b7727128f7fdd810339ea1",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish Property rights are not fair: it is up to individuals to protect themselves in the sphere of relationships. Married couples have entered into a state-endorsed relationship which provides advantages (both financially in terms of taxes and inheritance, and through recognition and validation). It is reasonable for the state to require something in return: namely, that the parties are treated fairly, should that marriage end. Moreover, married couples are forced to share their property because they have chosen to commit themselves to each other. When people get married they know what they are signing up to and can therefore be taken to consent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f5b2c1aa987d1543bd8c19134f9e3be",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish The absence of property rights does not prevent interdependence: the law does not prevent individuals supporting each other or taking risks. However, it requires that couples discuss such plans properly with each other and decide how they wish to structure their own relationships. Expecting all couples, regardless of their circumstances, to support each other financially is unrealistic. Furthermore, it is possible that at the margin some couples may not cohabit in order to avoid having to share their property. These couples will have even less support.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50dfc795678befacbbea820b7a3aa7b5",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish It is unreasonable for the law to expect unmarried couples to plan for when they separate: people within relationships tend to be optimistic about the prospects of their relationships. They do not expect to split up, and most choose cohabitation to see if the relationship is going to work out at all. Making agreements about property at this stage can seem unromantic and unnecessary. USA Today writes: “For young couples who have never been married, cohabiting may seem like a hassle-free way of testing a relationship before tying the knot. And for those who already have been through a divorce, who have children or other significant assets, cohabiting may seem like a way to avoid costly legal entanglements if the relationship doesn't work out.” [1]\n\n[1] http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/dating/story/2011/04/When...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d50ac4cab5e76e8892da181e179b5486",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish Care can be provided without property rights: as with interdependence, the status quo does not prevent individuals reducing their income to care for others. It merely requires that couples discuss their plans and make provisions to deal with the need to care for children or elderly relatives.\n\ni\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "280a9e5172d4bbc0ddca9407293094e4",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish Creating legal provisions for property sharing after the end of a cohabitating relationship in no way limits the autonomy of individuals. If anything, the status quo does that. It forces couples to either get married (which they may not want to do) or to sign a cohabitation agreement before the beginning of a relationship (which is a preposterous idea to most couples). By creating a legal way to handle disputes after the end of a cohabitating relationship, the state would offer a middle road between the extremes of marriage and signing an unromantic contract early on.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ff5963a8292509ab59cfb7b57a74536",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society\n\nFairness requires that cohabiting couples share their property on separation: when couples have lived together for a long period (such as five years or more) they will have gained benefits at each other’s expense but also suffered disadvantages for the other’s benefit. If one partner gives up a career to raise children or support the other in their career, they are seriously disadvantaged upon separation. Where the other partner has gained as a result of this sacrifice, they should compensate the former, so that the two parties can move towards independence in equal positions. Parties may choose not to marry, but this should not have to cause such financial harm to one partner.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3cd9719019acf6f4b8b680cd54ac9b5",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish The status quo discourages interdependence\n\nThe status quo discourages interdependence: the absence of property rights under the status quo encourages unmarried couples to act as individuals, protecting their own financial interests, rather than supporting each other. In UK law, “their relationship with one another is not recognised as having any legal standing, and they have no special status in the eyes of the English legal system” [1] Individuals are usually more able to pursue their own ambitions when they have the support of another. For example, financial support and security makes it easier to take risks which may be economically beneficial, such as setting up a new business, or undergoing further education to improve employment prospects.\n\n[1] http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Family_Law/Cohabitation\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6802693028966313f7734e75af93ea21",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish The creation of such a law would strengthen trends toward paternalist law making\n\nWhen couples choose not to get married, perhaps because one party is not willing to do so, this does not indicate the same commitment to each other. Where there are considerable disparities in income or wealth couples may have no desire to divide their assets and the choice not to get married may reflect this. Those who desire financial protection can choose to marry but the state should not intervene when couples do not make this choice, beyond ensuring that provision is made for children. Such intervention undermines the autonomy of individuals within cohabiting couples because it suggests that they cannot make these decisions competently for themselves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "557045c4310e85d0e0ec555fb0a9b02e",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish Legal supervision will discourage independent planning\n\nThe law should encourage people to plan adequately: individual people are different and one size does not fit all. If the state plans how your property should be owned, this fails to provide for each individual’s specific lifestyle and circumstances. An increasing number of couples enter cohabitation contracts (where they agree how to split property if they separate) and this should be encouraged instead of automatic rights.\n\nThat is why some countries (like the US) offer cohabitation agreements, which is s a written agreement that governs the rights and obligations of two people who are in a relationship and live together in a shared residence. [1]\n\n[1] http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/cohabitation-agreement/?ldcn=cohab\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b3f3c1ddcf14a619bf9f7f15cbd65da",
"text": "eneral religion marriage family house would allow cohabiting couples who wish The current situation discourages altruistic in a relationship\n\nThe status quo discourages care for children and the elderly: a further consequence of the perceived need for independence is that individuals are less able to reduce their working hours in order to care for young children or elderly relatives, in case they suffer significantly as a result, for example if their relationship ends. Children who see more of their parents often develop stronger relationships with their parents which are valuable in later life when they need advice or support. In addition, studies show that it is beneficial for their emotional development. Elderly people, on the other hand, often feel particularly vulnerable and isolated and care from relatives plays an important role in maintaining their inclusion within society.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8e2c1f644b15bdb82e527481c9e1c18e
|
Principles should be maintained even when it is convenient to change them
The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change.
Look how the Episcopal (Anglican) church is falling apart over the ordination of gay priests and women bishops, including some bishops leaving the Anglican for Catholic Church. [1] In any case, allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly lead to a two-class priesthood, with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy are superior to those who reject it. That would hardly be a healthy development for the unity of the church or for the authority of the priesthood.
[1] Butt, Riazat, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops’, guardian.co.uk, 8 November 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/08/archbishop-canterbury-accept...
|
[
{
"docid": "73b5842334e272783c9fba7d80a48499",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy The insistence on priestly celibacy is one of the major stumbling blocks to church unity. Discussions with the Orthodox church (which has always allowed married priests) and protestant denominations such as the Episcopal (Anglican) church often founder on the different conception of priesthood held by the Catholic church. Yet there is a precedent for allowing married priests - in the 1990s when British Anglican priests who could not accept women priests left the Church of England to become Catholics, they were allowed to serve as Catholic priests despite being married. Changing the rule more generally would make ecumenical dialogue more possible and open the way to the healing of historic schisms in the body of Christ.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f731ed5a2fbf0b766abee32e129d627b",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibate priests can never experience the intimate and complicated marital relationship. They lack credibility when conducting marriage and family counselling. Married priests can better serve their parishioners because of their marital and family experiences.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6503436239b5d720de6428b8fb31bd43",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Protestant clergy, for example in the Episcopal church which has similar parish structures to Roman Catholicism, successfully balance their work in the church and their families. Were priests permitted to marry and have families, their families could serve as examples to others. In addition, marriage can provide a priest with increased social support and intimacy. Too many priests burn out through overwork and stress, having no one at home to support them and tell them its time to stop working.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb138eafad0025607587f48ac22cbe20",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Protestant churches, which do not require celibacy, are also having problems recruiting clergy. Worldwide, the number of new priests is increasing. Only the developed world has seen a decline in priestly vocations, although even here devout countries such as Poland buck the trend. A recent study showed that vocations were on the rise in dioceses in the USA that were loyal to the teachings of the church, including priestly celibacy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a494054cf9b8dc4f036a6173068cffa8",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibacy and paedophilia are not connected. Sexual abuse also occurs in religions where clergy are permitted to marry. Studies have shown that sexual abusers account for less than 2% of Roman Catholic clergy, a figure comparable to clergy in other denominations, or even less than in the wider male population as a whole. [1]\n\nSexual abuse in the church is undoubtedly a serious problem to be addressed, but not one that is linked to the issue of celibacy.\n\n[1] Oddie, William, ‘Now we have real evidence – sexual abuse is not a ‘Catholic problem’, Catholic Herald, 9 August 2010, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/08/09/now-we-have-r...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7de15966bdeb2311309a6f257aeaadd2",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy The priest is set apart from the world. He has a unique role: he represents Christ to his parishioners. Just as Jesus led a life of chastity dedicated to God, so a priest must offer his life to God’s people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27b1d0351c0cd497f1970e287cc25c01",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy The earliest church fathers, including St Augustine, supported the celibate priesthood. In the fourth century, church councils enacted legislation forbidding married men who were ordained from having conjugal relations with their wives. We do not know if any of the apostles, other than Peter, were married, but we do know that they gave up everything to follow Jesus. More importantly, Jesus himself led a celibate life.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bb8b5e4516d4aa377ab22e4f19251b3",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibacy grants an understanding of self-control\n\nThe celibate priest has a unique understanding of the power of self-control and the giving of self, which are key ideas in marriage. The celibate priest is in a very good position to counsel people on how to keep the marital vows such as fidelity as they have experience of keeping the much stricter vow of celibacy. [1] The priest is married to the church and can counsel couples and families using that knowledge.\n\n[1] ‘5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them’, catholiceducation.org, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "085bcbce1905dbb8c62b975fc949aaf7",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibacy allows a priest to devote himself entirely to his vocation\n\nA celibate priest can devote all his time to his parishioners. A married priest must spend time with his family. Protestant clergy have balanced their work for the church with their family responsibilities only with difficulty. Many wives and families of Protestant clergy report feeling second to the congregation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcc6f5747e1be6a66553a55be45947b7",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibacy reduces the pool of people wanting to become priests\n\nThe number of priests in developed countries is on the decline. In Ireland in 2007 160 priests died but only nine were ordained to replace them. It is expected that the number of priests in Ireland will fall from 4758 in 2008 to 1500 by 2028. [1] As a result almost 50,000 parishes worldwide are without a priest despite the number of parishes not having risen with the increase in numbers of Catholics. [2] The prohibition on marriage pushes some men away from the priesthood. The requirement of celibacy drastically reduces the pool from which the church can select priests and means that the church is not always getting the “best and the brightest”. As a result even many within the church believe the demand for celibacy should be ended. [3]\n\n[1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Psychological vetting of would-be priests exacerbates decline’, The Guardian, 11 September 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/11/catholicism.ireland\n\n[2] Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, ‘Frequently Requested Church Statistics’, 2011, http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html\n\n[3] Staff reporter, ‘European theologians call for end to priestly celibacy’, CatholicHerald.co.uk, 7 February 2011, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/02/07/european-theologians-cal...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b70bc756a6c263650a71a16eac2ef8eb",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibacy is outdated\n\nPriestly celibacy is out-dated. It sets the priest apart from the modern world and the experiences of his parishioners. Originally, around 1100 the Gregorian Reform movement in the church was keen to enforce celibacy for fear that too many married priests would leave church property and benefices to their children, or create local priestly dynasties. [1] At the time these fears were reasonable and necessary to maintain the property and discipline of the church, but today they are utterly unnecessary.\n\n[1] Thurston, Hernert, Celibacy of the Clergy Second Period, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.3, Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1908, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e7ea235ea9bcd1fc448cb9a9b3de926",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Priest have not always been celibate\n\nWhile celibacy had been encouraged since the beginning of the church, until the beginning of the twelfth century, when it was banned by the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139, Priests in the Western church were permitted to marry. [1] The Bible does not mandate celibacy and, in fact, St Peter, the first pope, was married. Even today within the Catholic Church celibacy is not universal as Eastern Rite Catholics can marry and it is the norm that they do, [2] and there are some Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers who have converted to Catholicism. [3] The true history and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church include the option for priests to marry or at least for married men to become priests.\n\n[1] Parish, Helen, Clerical Celibacy in the West: c.1100-1700, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, 2010, pp103-4, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DP5TL63BbNQC&lpg=PA104&ots=JC7wi8wmCE&dq\n\n[2] Brom, Robert H., Bishop of San Diego, ‘Celibacy and the Priesthood’, Catholic.com, 10 August 2004, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood\n\n[3] Johnston, George Sim, ‘The Case for Priestly Celibacy’, Catholic News Agency, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1265\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea0deb5c607404ebdc217f2f4dee9d27",
"text": "church house would remove requirement catholic priests take vow celibacy Celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men into the priesthood\n\nThe prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men to the priesthood. They hope that by totally denying their sexuality, they will not engage in deviant acts, but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their deviant desires. Permitting priests to marry would bring men with healthy sexual desires to the priesthood.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9d546ddc0325a5731d50c3a0bf204765
|
Removing under god would promote religious tolerance
Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity.
This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.
|
[
{
"docid": "1cc2ef8f548348490032647a36708dc6",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed.\n\nThis change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have otherwise been indifferent towards them.\n\nNational pride will, therefore, be associated with Christianity, as opposed to atheism or other religions, to an even greater extent than it is under the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "145c95ae348fafe97c0a381f14a1344c",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The words “under God” show no preference to Christianity. “God” can refer to the chief deity of any religion. The opposition does not accept that America’s history has a Christian state has any bearing whatsoever on the meaning of this statement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b8d22786545221fc227784eb2ee4606",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45340c09256da1fb1a623ca6d2bb2500",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance True neutrality would be adhering to the status quo; this legislation will be seen as a wilful act on the part of the government to remove religion and faith from patriotism.\n\nAs a result, religious people are likely to feel sidelined and alienated by their government to a far greater extent than atheists are likely to feel included.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b41db254434de07c18699140349a6349",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "196981e4aa4888909182ecd27dda57d3",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Tradition is not a reason for persisting wth anything!\n\nThe proposition believes that the fact that references to God are made throughout official American state proceedings is not a reason to persist in including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but a reason for its removal to be all the more urgent. References to God do not have a place in official state proceedings as the church and the state should be completely separate from one another.\n\n\"Under God\" as us in the Gettysburg address, had different meanings then. It could mean \"God wiling\". For that reason alone the phrase should be removed from the Pledge because \"one nation, God willing\" goes against the whole point.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "778ca9674db49f308d5bb250f21a72ba",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The majority is not allowed to oppress the minority, they would not be allowed to go back to slavery if they wished, in exactly the same way congress should not be able to establish religion even if the majority wants it to as it is against the US constitution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b1ef8faa0e0718965996bf28275d040",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists.\n\nThe proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a move to the state, which is supposed to be completely separated from religion, making no comment about religion as an anti-religious comment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fef2f0da45c3d8f57e6a019fa463fc3",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Shows that the government values atheists as much as religious people and that one does not have to be religious to contribute to the state.\n\nThe proposition does not accept that people will regard atheists with animosity as a result of this legislation but will come to recognise them, to a greater degree, as people will an equal potential to give to America.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb924e8d5adbbdcaf342b3b6e888f228",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The proposition totally rejects the idea that the words “under God” are necessary to indicate that the government does not have the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. The fact that the constitution exists and the government cannot contradict it is what means the government cannot act without consideration; the words “under God” add nothing to the government’s answerability and their removal would detract nothing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16d72331cfb63418e8ba0976ec400456",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Upholding of the First Amendment\n\nThe First Amendment is that the state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.(Archives.gov) This prohibits favouring one religion over another.(Cornell University Law School, 2010) The use of the words “under God” in this way, particularly regarding America’s history as a Christian state, clearly shows favour towards Christianity, or at its most expansive monotheistic religions, over alternative religions or no religion, even without explicitly mentioning Christianity. (Newdow 2003)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7870508f678b468e1a67072a3ee3d8bb",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Prevents the coercion of school children\n\nIt is key to this debate that school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. Although they have the opportunity to opt out, the proposition does not believe they have the knowledge necessary to fully understand the oath that they are taking. (The Humanist Society 2004) According to the decision in Newdow v. US \"The [school's] policy and the [1954 Act adding 'under God' to the Pledge] fail the coercion test. Just as in Lee [Lee v. Weisman, 1992], the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting.\"(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002) Children should not be put in this position so ‘under God’ must be taken out.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5b9877db91d9a8e628fc9b871a86589",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Separation of state and religion\n\nThe inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fead9f00b1293ad9c4ee7514b754c04c",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Prevents the marginalisation of non-believers\n\nThe inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that there is no place for atheism in American patriotism and that non-believers have nothing to give to their country. The removal of these words would create a more inclusive America that accepts that everyone, including all non-Christians and non-believers, have something to give to their country. (Buckner 2002)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70c09f7eaa95c2f2b27bf41884170de5",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Implies ultimate power on the part of the state\n\nThe words “under God” reaffirm individual rights of American citizens as divine and coming from above the state. These words show that taking away these rights is not even within the conceivable grasp of the state. Removal of these words puts power back into the hands of the state and reinforces the state as the ultimate authority over what happens to its people. (The American Center for Law and Justice 2004)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd7fa18ec1d579f6eca476fa374b3fff",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Associates change and, by extension, anti-nationalism with atheism\n\nAny change to something as ingrained in American patriotism as the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with extreme resistance. As Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued “the Pledge has become, alongside the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner, our most routine ceremonial act of patriotism; countless schoolchildren recite it daily, and their religious heterogeneity reflects that of the Nation as a whole. As a result, the Pledge and the context in which it is employed are familiar and nearly inseparable in the public mind.\"(O’Connor, 2004) With it being so ingrained most members of the US public would not see any reason to get rid of the words. The change would be widely accredited to atheists and would create animosity towards them. This legislation, therefore, is inherently divisive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1e18ecd357ce30572c95843d3f1a9a7",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The American people would be against the change\n\nAs discussed above, the removal of “under God” will not be a move towards neutrality but a move against religion. As a result it is not surprising that the American people would be against such a move. An immense majority, 87% in a newsweek poll said the pledge should contain “under God” against only 9% saying no.(CNN, 2002) No democratic government should go against the will of such a majority of the population they are supposed to represent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b924f2bf6038d63a7a84ad1afafeddab",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance “Under God” is part of American tradition and history\n\nReference to God is made throughout American patriotism. The Supreme Court opens by saying ‘God save America and this honourable court’. The ‘under God’ in the pledge itself came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address a significant speech in American history.(Library of congress) It is impossible to remove references to God from American patriotism and to do so would severely damage American heritage and tradition. (Robertson 2002), (Federer 2003)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238dd5f27ccc682fcd6712d1a15e1cbe",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Likely to be seen as a state sanctioned condemnation of religion\n\nAfter nearly sixty years of having the words “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance this legislation will not be seen as a move to neutrality but a move against religion. 78.4% of Americans are Christian with a further 4.7% believing in other religions.(The Pew Forum, 2007) Most Americans, 60%, think it is good for the country when government leaders publicly express their faith in God.(CNN, 2002) As a result the signal that taking out under God will send to American people is that the state is against religion.\n\nAny modification to the Pledge of Allegiance will be seen as a wilful act by the current government; true neutrality can only be shown by maintaining the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
204e4fd79b19ffda55124ffb3a632b82
|
Implies ultimate power on the part of the state
The words “under God” reaffirm individual rights of American citizens as divine and coming from above the state. These words show that taking away these rights is not even within the conceivable grasp of the state. Removal of these words puts power back into the hands of the state and reinforces the state as the ultimate authority over what happens to its people. (The American Center for Law and Justice 2004)
|
[
{
"docid": "bb924e8d5adbbdcaf342b3b6e888f228",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The proposition totally rejects the idea that the words “under God” are necessary to indicate that the government does not have the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. The fact that the constitution exists and the government cannot contradict it is what means the government cannot act without consideration; the words “under God” add nothing to the government’s answerability and their removal would detract nothing.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "196981e4aa4888909182ecd27dda57d3",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Tradition is not a reason for persisting wth anything!\n\nThe proposition believes that the fact that references to God are made throughout official American state proceedings is not a reason to persist in including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but a reason for its removal to be all the more urgent. References to God do not have a place in official state proceedings as the church and the state should be completely separate from one another.\n\n\"Under God\" as us in the Gettysburg address, had different meanings then. It could mean \"God wiling\". For that reason alone the phrase should be removed from the Pledge because \"one nation, God willing\" goes against the whole point.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "778ca9674db49f308d5bb250f21a72ba",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The majority is not allowed to oppress the minority, they would not be allowed to go back to slavery if they wished, in exactly the same way congress should not be able to establish religion even if the majority wants it to as it is against the US constitution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b1ef8faa0e0718965996bf28275d040",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists.\n\nThe proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a move to the state, which is supposed to be completely separated from religion, making no comment about religion as an anti-religious comment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fef2f0da45c3d8f57e6a019fa463fc3",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Shows that the government values atheists as much as religious people and that one does not have to be religious to contribute to the state.\n\nThe proposition does not accept that people will regard atheists with animosity as a result of this legislation but will come to recognise them, to a greater degree, as people will an equal potential to give to America.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "145c95ae348fafe97c0a381f14a1344c",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The words “under God” show no preference to Christianity. “God” can refer to the chief deity of any religion. The opposition does not accept that America’s history has a Christian state has any bearing whatsoever on the meaning of this statement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b8d22786545221fc227784eb2ee4606",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45340c09256da1fb1a623ca6d2bb2500",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance True neutrality would be adhering to the status quo; this legislation will be seen as a wilful act on the part of the government to remove religion and faith from patriotism.\n\nAs a result, religious people are likely to feel sidelined and alienated by their government to a far greater extent than atheists are likely to feel included.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc2ef8f548348490032647a36708dc6",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed.\n\nThis change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have otherwise been indifferent towards them.\n\nNational pride will, therefore, be associated with Christianity, as opposed to atheism or other religions, to an even greater extent than it is under the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b41db254434de07c18699140349a6349",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd7fa18ec1d579f6eca476fa374b3fff",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Associates change and, by extension, anti-nationalism with atheism\n\nAny change to something as ingrained in American patriotism as the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with extreme resistance. As Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued “the Pledge has become, alongside the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner, our most routine ceremonial act of patriotism; countless schoolchildren recite it daily, and their religious heterogeneity reflects that of the Nation as a whole. As a result, the Pledge and the context in which it is employed are familiar and nearly inseparable in the public mind.\"(O’Connor, 2004) With it being so ingrained most members of the US public would not see any reason to get rid of the words. The change would be widely accredited to atheists and would create animosity towards them. This legislation, therefore, is inherently divisive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1e18ecd357ce30572c95843d3f1a9a7",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance The American people would be against the change\n\nAs discussed above, the removal of “under God” will not be a move towards neutrality but a move against religion. As a result it is not surprising that the American people would be against such a move. An immense majority, 87% in a newsweek poll said the pledge should contain “under God” against only 9% saying no.(CNN, 2002) No democratic government should go against the will of such a majority of the population they are supposed to represent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b924f2bf6038d63a7a84ad1afafeddab",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance “Under God” is part of American tradition and history\n\nReference to God is made throughout American patriotism. The Supreme Court opens by saying ‘God save America and this honourable court’. The ‘under God’ in the pledge itself came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address a significant speech in American history.(Library of congress) It is impossible to remove references to God from American patriotism and to do so would severely damage American heritage and tradition. (Robertson 2002), (Federer 2003)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238dd5f27ccc682fcd6712d1a15e1cbe",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Likely to be seen as a state sanctioned condemnation of religion\n\nAfter nearly sixty years of having the words “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance this legislation will not be seen as a move to neutrality but a move against religion. 78.4% of Americans are Christian with a further 4.7% believing in other religions.(The Pew Forum, 2007) Most Americans, 60%, think it is good for the country when government leaders publicly express their faith in God.(CNN, 2002) As a result the signal that taking out under God will send to American people is that the state is against religion.\n\nAny modification to the Pledge of Allegiance will be seen as a wilful act by the current government; true neutrality can only be shown by maintaining the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16d72331cfb63418e8ba0976ec400456",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Upholding of the First Amendment\n\nThe First Amendment is that the state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.(Archives.gov) This prohibits favouring one religion over another.(Cornell University Law School, 2010) The use of the words “under God” in this way, particularly regarding America’s history as a Christian state, clearly shows favour towards Christianity, or at its most expansive monotheistic religions, over alternative religions or no religion, even without explicitly mentioning Christianity. (Newdow 2003)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7870508f678b468e1a67072a3ee3d8bb",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Prevents the coercion of school children\n\nIt is key to this debate that school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. Although they have the opportunity to opt out, the proposition does not believe they have the knowledge necessary to fully understand the oath that they are taking. (The Humanist Society 2004) According to the decision in Newdow v. US \"The [school's] policy and the [1954 Act adding 'under God' to the Pledge] fail the coercion test. Just as in Lee [Lee v. Weisman, 1992], the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting.\"(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002) Children should not be put in this position so ‘under God’ must be taken out.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11375ea597969703bf42a08d9b726728",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Removing under god would promote religious tolerance\n\nEven if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity.\n\nThis associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5b9877db91d9a8e628fc9b871a86589",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Separation of state and religion\n\nThe inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fead9f00b1293ad9c4ee7514b754c04c",
"text": "church god house would remove words under god american pledge allegiance Prevents the marginalisation of non-believers\n\nThe inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that there is no place for atheism in American patriotism and that non-believers have nothing to give to their country. The removal of these words would create a more inclusive America that accepts that everyone, including all non-Christians and non-believers, have something to give to their country. (Buckner 2002)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d5da1bedd38f2fa0731950f1bb966671
|
There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy
There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus.
Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1
1 PRO-Life Information
|
[
{
"docid": "067637f33007485a36894641d6bc76f4",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b2019add2a305d02032fea2007e62af",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to \"choice\", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c6b10fa6853be5154eab91646703d22",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion.\n\n1 L.B Finner et al\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb2b2d430c3edf4bcd11dd3b946596c",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.\n\nMany laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.\n\nAs far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ab36aa9d4311fab5bcc2c973b3add43",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Women do not \"want\" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to \"kill babies\" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b48d611eea6a574c4ea1a85e184f132",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d55039a27d3e1f7cf308707661fb0bcf",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they:\n\na) are not lives, are not human until fairly late\n\nb) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0054df1dd753ad164000b331f011a0f",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe292920bd1de3a44da2f61f97aacfd",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Women have a right to choose\n\nWomen should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ac68552147056e24a32bd7d4ccc7fee",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy\n\nWomen, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.\n\nIn cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the \"unwanted children\".\n\n1 SECASA\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4e2a213f7e07876510eceefc7b8a9a2",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose There are practical problems with banning abortion\n\nNot only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1\n\nExample: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions.\n\n1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d61243d1e184a306b4596864361f5803",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior\n\nAbortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. In Mexico City, a year after abortion was legalized, the frequency increased.1\n\n1 LIFESITE NEWS\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b1334173f3ef3cf8bbbb660443c8562",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder\n\nIt is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are \"conceived\" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: \"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.\" in the 1980 presidential debate.2\n\n1 THE TELEGRAPH\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e9189676c5860ca70f317c898e6e332",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Most abortions are performed out of convenience\n\nMost abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily \"life-style\" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1\n\n1 L.B Finner et al\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42756a9fae321dffa64d285b1bf200f3",
"text": "th general pregnancy philosophy ethics life house believes womans right choose Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation\n\nEvery life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
1d20472a1a9e75b0a323dc1952efbd80
|
It would have a damaging effect on society
Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and therefore performing euthanasia without their consent. [1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die. [2]
[1] The case against, religiouseducation.co.uik http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/ethics/euthanasia/DpFS_Agst.html (accessed 4/6/2011).
[2] Barbara Ellen, Who is to judge which lives are worth living?, guardian.co.uk, 17 April 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/barbara-ellen-assisted-death (accessed 6/6/2011)
|
[
{
"docid": "e22c9d005cee52ddb6eed79a767d91b3",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.' [1]\n\n[1] Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/ethics/euthanasia/DpFS_Agst.html (accessed 4/6/2011).\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c536672310ef16277e182e1d8c7a1ce4",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.\n\n[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bea78c6a283bd5ab4dfc3790590ad5b1",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life.\n\n[1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05333e02e3fbcc7253c46f6830b27d8c",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine.\n\n[1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases.html (accessed 6/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aca34cb48b47ce81f827058906a68b1b",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1077b84c6f56228d63de5f0cfb92fcb9",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1bc7564285dbaeabb5e0e77e11bcfe8",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.\n\n[1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35. http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/roleofdepression.pdf (accessed 4/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ab4a274b4a3acf3bfb88e73eec8c661",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them\n\nThose who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2]\n\n[1] Cholbi, Michael, \"Suicide\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/suicide/ #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)\n\n[2] Cholbi, Michael, \"Suicide\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/suicide/ #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd69b581aa4a208675541ed7642724f",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused\n\nThe guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1]\n\n[1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/ethics/euthanasia/DpFS_MedOp.html (accessed on 4/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f0d5445b25f0da3481062d5ff867a72",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Only God can give and take away life\n\nLife is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” [1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other human beings are given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18. [2]\n\n[1] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002 http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_political_science_euthanasia.htm (accessed 6/6/2011)\n\n[2] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002 http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_political_science_euthanasia.htm (accessed 6/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56ddf93370202af997f8722606eeb9b4",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them\n\nThe gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. [1]\n\n[1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases.html (accessed 6/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8293b09ead02e8cbc604a758c92529e",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help\n\nThe impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006, [1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.\n\n[1] Wikipedia, \"Suicide of Megan Meier\", en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier (accessed 6/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74877ea3108ab2a9b964f8db45d4a330",
"text": "ase healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Every human being has a right to life\n\nPerhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.\n\n[1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, http://www.assistedsuicide.org/suicide_laws.html (accessed 4/6/2011)\n\n[2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oct/17/rugbyunion (accessed 6/6/2011)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7f04b778ea81711d76ca80f92b2f92c4
|
Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning
Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1]
Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.
[1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009
|
[
{
"docid": "40b19ed72d71e1bac34e4fac2abded15",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2]\n\nAlmost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3]\n\nJust as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way.\n\n[1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010.\n\n[2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth.\n\n[3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f5e2ff1b8ab9eb50d1c4cd61cb1cfe15",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production.\n\nBritish farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.”\n\nHe also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2]\n\n[1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010\n\n[2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "564f6dd5b0a0c7688dce8299dacbb469",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc.\n\n[1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa7f61d7df500fa51546149e9066055",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.\n\nEating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7215b155031b92f58b600672d0d133b",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0134f620274a660150f1f5eb700a7dd3",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c771bcd26b092cd3bf1c8c308c89771",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2]\n\n[1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010.\n\n[2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "038d98ff536d0488096cdb95c28d921e",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Being vegetarian helps the environment\n\nBecoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation\n\nAt Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1]\n\nThe 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2]\n\nAs a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1.\n\nThe same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6]\n\nWith a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat.\n\n[1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center\n\n[2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 .\n\n[3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009.\n\n[4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997.\n\n[5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003\n\n[6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d956819e37d520aa04a7bf92216b25d4",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Vegetarianism is healthier\n\nThere are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron.\n\n[1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d2f1df727007b6f93b0de21361b7db9",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics It is immoral to kill animals\n\nAs evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.\n\nFurther on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.\n\n[1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008\n\n[2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1213a6bbbc60216e3922fd66e8ee15a2",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics There are problems with being vegetarian\n\nA vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.\n\n[1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "409d1df4601de142beb71c66bc4a3d2d",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Humans can choose their own nutrition plan\n\nHumans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd799733f4d55ba480dd169e3383d013",
"text": " animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Survival of the fittest\n\nIt is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.\n\n[1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
177ac082d4ce3f76ea5f2f0148395005
|
A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century
A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.
The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .
[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990
|
[
{
"docid": "f7ff697721c99d04845ef65038b91e5d",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.\n\nWithout compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .\n\n[i] \"Libertarianism\". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3c03eac3d9cbb70f5fb2ebede8e022a6",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.\n\nIt is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.\n\nIn those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.\n\nThe fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfa8ce577ae39a6cf62f01a4a49df522",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.\n\nThe Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.\n\nBenjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]\n\nThe point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.\n\n[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54a03a993f78331a92991a3006adbf1a",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.\n\nThe libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.\n\nBeyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.\n\n[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ba36d21ce7ab1e34c1a7f6b7cb03410",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.\n\nThe role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty\n\nand the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b4a7ab21d2e2a5470210698bb62f02b",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.\n\nThe presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff583d0aede69dd271f6fd8e7fd8023f",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score\n\nOne of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.\n\nAs a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.\n\nIndeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1342fbde566ff0babcff5d3889d2429",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual\n\nA sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.\n\nThe Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”\n\nAll too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a7b2a287902bac6b498ada78779c08",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree\n\nThe alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.\n\nWhat both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "258b55ba64c6f5583b5fd7dcc760ef1f",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.\n\nThere is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f774c19f940fdd29f03b68dbc741ce0",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl\n\nIt is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
78b26a8e33e02b3d6015558485550960
|
Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual
A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.
The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”
All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.
|
[
{
"docid": "cfa8ce577ae39a6cf62f01a4a49df522",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.\n\nThe Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.\n\nBenjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]\n\nThe point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.\n\n[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f7ff697721c99d04845ef65038b91e5d",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.\n\nWithout compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .\n\n[i] \"Libertarianism\". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c03eac3d9cbb70f5fb2ebede8e022a6",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.\n\nIt is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.\n\nIn those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.\n\nThe fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54a03a993f78331a92991a3006adbf1a",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.\n\nThe libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.\n\nBeyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.\n\n[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ba36d21ce7ab1e34c1a7f6b7cb03410",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.\n\nThe role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty\n\nand the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b4a7ab21d2e2a5470210698bb62f02b",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.\n\nThe presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6e906be96adb5242907b2fcfb18a13f",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century\n\nA libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.\n\nThe primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .\n\n[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff583d0aede69dd271f6fd8e7fd8023f",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score\n\nOne of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.\n\nAs a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.\n\nIndeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a7b2a287902bac6b498ada78779c08",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree\n\nThe alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.\n\nWhat both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "258b55ba64c6f5583b5fd7dcc760ef1f",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.\n\nThere is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f774c19f940fdd29f03b68dbc741ce0",
"text": "political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl\n\nIt is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a44ed2364002315da78e9657bd3a86e9
|
Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth
Government regulation assumes not only irresponsible companies but also stupid consumers. Although, realistically, very little regulation has any direct impact on the consumer but tends to involve time-consuming paperwork demonstrating compliance so that some civil servant can tick a box to prove that something that was already being done can be shown to have been be done.
The effect of this tends to fall hardest on smaller businesses that don’t have large financial or legal departments. As a result it not only takes up valuable time that could be spent developing the business itself but more importantly acts to discourage people from starting in the first place. This is particularly so when it’s considered that many people who start up a new company do so after many years of working for someone else within the same sector. As a result they see the pressure that needless and time-consuming regulation puts upon that company.
|
[
{
"docid": "4e9f39a2ca876e3e7af9c8cb877075a8",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.\n\nThere are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.\n\nThe idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.\n\nEqually start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e195b0557beb98ef2db301114ecb69d5",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.\n\nThe advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.\n\nThere is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.\n\nThere is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.\n\nEven where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.\n\nMost importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7d1293ce2fc5287f3607d3db48dcb18",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.\n\nIt is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.\n\nIt is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c77781a1c24d52dc2258080b04a32dd7",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens.\n\nHowever, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd.\n\nTrying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country.\n\nEqually local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities.\n\nThe nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways.\n\nIn addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd.\n\nIf the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone.\n\nUltimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind.\n\nPharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65e805a7c6c5b26d002b730b31b7c4f9",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The primary difficulty with governments retaining surpluses is that the government has no proprietary right to the funds in its coffers. The taxpayer effectively subsidizes the government, on the understanding that it will undertake functions necessary for the defence, continued operation and normative improvement of the state and society.\n\nClearly defense has to be one of the core functions of government and there are a few others, such as maintaining law and order. For government to say that the only way of securing its own finances is running a small surplus in its current account budget is palpably not true when there is astonishing waste in government expenditure, which is in turn already bloated and intervenes into areas of public life where it simply does not belong.\n\nIn terms of using government expenditure as a tool to respond to recessions, there may well be a role in terms of how government uses its own purchasing power and it makes sense that should be used for domestic purchasing wherever possible, however there is little to be gained by government creating imaginary jobs undertaking roles that simply don’t produce anything.\n\nInstead the most useful role that government can play during a recession is not expanding its own size and, therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, but reducing it. Cutting the size of government reduces the tax burden on business and individuals and cuts back on regulatory pressure. Both actions free up money for expenditure which creates real jobs in the real economy, producing real wealth, in turn spent on real products, which in turn create jobs. This beneficial cycle is the basis of economics, creating imaginary jobs simply takes skills out of the real economy and reduces the pressure on individuals to take jobs that they might not see as ideal.\n\nThe most sensible response to a government surplus is not to hoard it on the basis that it might come in useful at some undefined point in the future but to give it back to the people who earned it in the first place. Doing so means that it is spent in the real economy, creating real wealth and real jobs and thereby avoiding the prospect of recession in the first place.\n\nUltimately it comes down to a simple divide as to whether you believe governments or people are better at spending money. The evidence of waste and incompetence in government expenditure is compelling and it seems an absurd solution to governments mismanaging the money they already have to give them more.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da9a8b440d40c913a20ece0191755e34",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.\n\nIt is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .\n\nFor average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .\n\nThere is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.\n\nTypically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .\n\n[i] \"Big government: Stop!\" The Economist. January 21st, 2010\n\n[ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.\n\n[iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce1db827852c8a3282431fac9a563df1",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs\n\nGovernment costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other.\n\nThere is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing.\n\nThere is compelling evidence [i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it.\n\nIt’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled.\n\nConversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy.\n\n[i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2343d4ff05bb90aa9e6091e4b977b11",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government has a tendency to be inefficient as it has no need to compete in an open marketplace, and jobs in state institutions are safe because of the guarantees both of the tax base and government’s greater borrowing capacity.\n\nGovernments both as a whole and in terms of individual employees have a tendency towards astonishing inefficiency, because state institutions are not subject to any meaningful competitive pressures. Indeed, many government employees earn as much or more than those in comparable jobs in the private sector, have preferential pension and benefit plans, lower hours and longer vacations. It is of course unsurprising that anyone in possession of such a job would be reluctant to give it up but also suggests a lower level of competition for keeping it. In the private sector such preferential returns would suggest that a worker would be likely to work longer hours to keep them.\n\nEqually, because senior managers are not spending their own money and rarely have their salaries indexed to efficiency and effectiveness- in a way that is automatic for most companies- there is little pressure to find cost and operational efficiencies. As a result it is usually cheaper and more effective for services to be provided by the private sector wherever possible and appropriate. Although there are some areas which must be managed by the public sector, such as elections and the criminal justice system, it is difficult to see the benefits in other areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd27bf966bf7d7887a66c290302c25d1",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business\n\nNobody would deny the role that remarkable individuals have played in the major social changes of history. They have, however, ultimately required the actions of government. Many of these have been achieved despite, rather than because of, the interests of business. Critically they have tended to be to the benefit of the weak, the vulnerable and the neglected.\n\nGovernments have been responsible for social reforms ranging from the abolition of slavery and child labor to the removal of conditions in factories and on farms that lead to injury and death, in addition to minimum wage regulations that meant that families could feed themselves. By contrast, the market was quite happy with cheap cotton sown by nimble young fingers.\n\nIn turn profit was given preference over any notion of job security or the right to a family life, the market was quite happy to see water poisoned and the air polluted – and in many cases is still happy with it. The logic of the market panders to slave-labor wages to migrant workers or exporting jobs where migrants are not available. Either way it costs the jobs of American citizens, pandering to racism and impoverishing workers at home and abroad. Although the prophets of the market suggest that the only thing standing between the average American and a suburban home - with a pool, 4x4 and an overflowing college-fund is the government, the reality could not be further from the truth.\n\nThe simple reality of the market is this: the profit motive that drives the system is the difference between the price of labor, plant and materials on one hand and the price that can be charged on the other. It makes sense to find the workers who demand the lowest wages, suppliers who can provide the cheapest materials and communities desperate enough to sell their air, water and family time. Whether those are at home or abroad. The market, by its nature has no compassion, no patriotism and no loyalty.\n\nThe only organization that can act as a restraint on that is, in the final reckoning, government which has legislative power to ensure that standards are maintained. It is easy to point to individual acts that have been beneficial but the reality is that the untrammeled market without government oversight has had a depressing tendency to chase the easiest buck, ditch the weakest, exploit where it can, pollute at will, corrupt where necessary and bend, break or ignore the rules.\n\nIt requires government as the agent of what the people consider acceptable to constrain the profit motive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbe6e3db4d6c5b79cf846f00cfaa78ab",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years\n\nGovernment expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.\n\nThere is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.\n\nThis only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.\n\nSo-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.\n\nThe military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.\n\nInstead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.\n\nAs far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .\n\nSo called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.\n\n[i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10ded3ae897dff7a75395be3ebf65dce",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it\n\nGovernment, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.\n\nThis is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.\n\nIn a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .\n\nAll of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.\n\nAmericans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .\n\n[i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.\n\n[ii] Jeffrey Sachs. \"The Case for Bigger Government.\" Time. January 8th, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3f44e2e61848b90fa15c215509414a12
|
Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs
Government costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other.
There is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing.
There is compelling evidence [i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it.
It’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled.
Conversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy.
[i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999
|
[
{
"docid": "e195b0557beb98ef2db301114ecb69d5",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.\n\nThe advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.\n\nThere is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.\n\nThere is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.\n\nEven where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.\n\nMost importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d7d1293ce2fc5287f3607d3db48dcb18",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.\n\nIt is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.\n\nIt is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e9f39a2ca876e3e7af9c8cb877075a8",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.\n\nThere are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.\n\nThe idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.\n\nEqually start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c77781a1c24d52dc2258080b04a32dd7",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens.\n\nHowever, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd.\n\nTrying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country.\n\nEqually local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities.\n\nThe nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways.\n\nIn addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd.\n\nIf the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone.\n\nUltimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind.\n\nPharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65e805a7c6c5b26d002b730b31b7c4f9",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The primary difficulty with governments retaining surpluses is that the government has no proprietary right to the funds in its coffers. The taxpayer effectively subsidizes the government, on the understanding that it will undertake functions necessary for the defence, continued operation and normative improvement of the state and society.\n\nClearly defense has to be one of the core functions of government and there are a few others, such as maintaining law and order. For government to say that the only way of securing its own finances is running a small surplus in its current account budget is palpably not true when there is astonishing waste in government expenditure, which is in turn already bloated and intervenes into areas of public life where it simply does not belong.\n\nIn terms of using government expenditure as a tool to respond to recessions, there may well be a role in terms of how government uses its own purchasing power and it makes sense that should be used for domestic purchasing wherever possible, however there is little to be gained by government creating imaginary jobs undertaking roles that simply don’t produce anything.\n\nInstead the most useful role that government can play during a recession is not expanding its own size and, therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, but reducing it. Cutting the size of government reduces the tax burden on business and individuals and cuts back on regulatory pressure. Both actions free up money for expenditure which creates real jobs in the real economy, producing real wealth, in turn spent on real products, which in turn create jobs. This beneficial cycle is the basis of economics, creating imaginary jobs simply takes skills out of the real economy and reduces the pressure on individuals to take jobs that they might not see as ideal.\n\nThe most sensible response to a government surplus is not to hoard it on the basis that it might come in useful at some undefined point in the future but to give it back to the people who earned it in the first place. Doing so means that it is spent in the real economy, creating real wealth and real jobs and thereby avoiding the prospect of recession in the first place.\n\nUltimately it comes down to a simple divide as to whether you believe governments or people are better at spending money. The evidence of waste and incompetence in government expenditure is compelling and it seems an absurd solution to governments mismanaging the money they already have to give them more.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da9a8b440d40c913a20ece0191755e34",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.\n\nIt is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .\n\nFor average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .\n\nThere is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.\n\nTypically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .\n\n[i] \"Big government: Stop!\" The Economist. January 21st, 2010\n\n[ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.\n\n[iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8647404c472d9b69593e2d8150fccae",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth\n\nGovernment regulation assumes not only irresponsible companies but also stupid consumers. Although, realistically, very little regulation has any direct impact on the consumer but tends to involve time-consuming paperwork demonstrating compliance so that some civil servant can tick a box to prove that something that was already being done can be shown to have been be done.\n\nThe effect of this tends to fall hardest on smaller businesses that don’t have large financial or legal departments. As a result it not only takes up valuable time that could be spent developing the business itself but more importantly acts to discourage people from starting in the first place. This is particularly so when it’s considered that many people who start up a new company do so after many years of working for someone else within the same sector. As a result they see the pressure that needless and time-consuming regulation puts upon that company.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2343d4ff05bb90aa9e6091e4b977b11",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government has a tendency to be inefficient as it has no need to compete in an open marketplace, and jobs in state institutions are safe because of the guarantees both of the tax base and government’s greater borrowing capacity.\n\nGovernments both as a whole and in terms of individual employees have a tendency towards astonishing inefficiency, because state institutions are not subject to any meaningful competitive pressures. Indeed, many government employees earn as much or more than those in comparable jobs in the private sector, have preferential pension and benefit plans, lower hours and longer vacations. It is of course unsurprising that anyone in possession of such a job would be reluctant to give it up but also suggests a lower level of competition for keeping it. In the private sector such preferential returns would suggest that a worker would be likely to work longer hours to keep them.\n\nEqually, because senior managers are not spending their own money and rarely have their salaries indexed to efficiency and effectiveness- in a way that is automatic for most companies- there is little pressure to find cost and operational efficiencies. As a result it is usually cheaper and more effective for services to be provided by the private sector wherever possible and appropriate. Although there are some areas which must be managed by the public sector, such as elections and the criminal justice system, it is difficult to see the benefits in other areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd27bf966bf7d7887a66c290302c25d1",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business\n\nNobody would deny the role that remarkable individuals have played in the major social changes of history. They have, however, ultimately required the actions of government. Many of these have been achieved despite, rather than because of, the interests of business. Critically they have tended to be to the benefit of the weak, the vulnerable and the neglected.\n\nGovernments have been responsible for social reforms ranging from the abolition of slavery and child labor to the removal of conditions in factories and on farms that lead to injury and death, in addition to minimum wage regulations that meant that families could feed themselves. By contrast, the market was quite happy with cheap cotton sown by nimble young fingers.\n\nIn turn profit was given preference over any notion of job security or the right to a family life, the market was quite happy to see water poisoned and the air polluted – and in many cases is still happy with it. The logic of the market panders to slave-labor wages to migrant workers or exporting jobs where migrants are not available. Either way it costs the jobs of American citizens, pandering to racism and impoverishing workers at home and abroad. Although the prophets of the market suggest that the only thing standing between the average American and a suburban home - with a pool, 4x4 and an overflowing college-fund is the government, the reality could not be further from the truth.\n\nThe simple reality of the market is this: the profit motive that drives the system is the difference between the price of labor, plant and materials on one hand and the price that can be charged on the other. It makes sense to find the workers who demand the lowest wages, suppliers who can provide the cheapest materials and communities desperate enough to sell their air, water and family time. Whether those are at home or abroad. The market, by its nature has no compassion, no patriotism and no loyalty.\n\nThe only organization that can act as a restraint on that is, in the final reckoning, government which has legislative power to ensure that standards are maintained. It is easy to point to individual acts that have been beneficial but the reality is that the untrammeled market without government oversight has had a depressing tendency to chase the easiest buck, ditch the weakest, exploit where it can, pollute at will, corrupt where necessary and bend, break or ignore the rules.\n\nIt requires government as the agent of what the people consider acceptable to constrain the profit motive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbe6e3db4d6c5b79cf846f00cfaa78ab",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years\n\nGovernment expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.\n\nThere is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.\n\nThis only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.\n\nSo-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.\n\nThe military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.\n\nInstead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.\n\nAs far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .\n\nSo called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.\n\n[i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10ded3ae897dff7a75395be3ebf65dce",
"text": "nomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it\n\nGovernment, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.\n\nThis is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.\n\nIn a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .\n\nAll of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.\n\nAmericans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .\n\n[i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.\n\n[ii] Jeffrey Sachs. \"The Case for Bigger Government.\" Time. January 8th, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7a73b10fb8695178a371f35b933a816b
|
Having children is extraordinarily expensive
For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc.
*Boy Scouts of America, 2011, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/media/ES_Finances.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "c414d956715d9525c0eed2ba37d0bd45",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "80429ad84e100111211e6eda068ce441",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dce624ee963c324fb68b34512382684",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db7604a074cfe123b63daa211cfcfed7",
"text": "life society family house would never have children There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "610ab891e6d44bee85ce5718bff18fa7",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.\n\n*Bayaz, 2009, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169018.php\n\n**Newsweek, 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aafe0047f68edccbb4eb7f1faf30a933",
"text": "life society family house would never have children There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca20351cf4f1c19946fb553aa60392ab",
"text": "life society family house would never have children People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c10a7174b67dda0fcacf3aa50c605a3",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children can be counterproductive in achieving a desirable society. First of all, having children is by no means necessary for possessing all those valuable traits. All of them can be developed though other experiences as well. Secondly, having kids may actually lead to society being less desirable. For instance, parents being exhausted by constant absorption with their children become less productive. They can also become disillusioned or frustrated by their offspring, which will result in their general bitterness.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0783e26c7218c1cfc570550cd8aca4e7",
"text": "life society family house would never have children There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05ceb9304fa118b9961a67b9bccbe2c9",
"text": "life society family house would never have children There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83b891a914bca6d6db92efb4ccdf904",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children is emotionally draining for parents\n\nThe level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”*\n\n*Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f8035fa6a1e15d7198ddb8fdf3d84d8",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Not having children is environmentally friendly\n\nThe more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment.\n\n* Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006, http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=106\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c27909c140d199cd31d29a28c946db19",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Not having children promotes gender equality\n\nSocial and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division.\n\n*Goodley, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/31/cmi-equal-pay-report\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2695620aac6d0cd10dc6c9f0d4d05040",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents\n\nParenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says \"Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood.\"**\n\n*Kingston, 2009, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/3/\n\n**Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03ecc21c8ee5b355fc8632500e1dc50",
"text": "life society family house would never have children It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.\n\nFour out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane.\n\n*Shah 2010, http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da02f67e07f946e0871792231d758d07",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children is the essence of existence for every creature\n\nThe most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.\n\n* Collins English Dictionary, 2003, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b4c8b3e12707a2529598c5012eea312",
"text": "life society family house would never have children The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.\n\nNot only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250a39d6a0a7e12b5966d0eb587980eb",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children is our duty and responsibility\n\nWe cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.\n\n*The Economist Online, 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "497a81e8f71015eaa1fb2d3d9f42a7d2",
"text": "life society family house would never have children Having children guarantees support for parents\n\nFrom parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide.\n\n*Worldcrunch, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091308,00.html?iid=pf-mai...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
13a55a8a83a5798568e4b3de42db07a6
|
Genetic destabilisation
Natural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions.
For instance, the spread of sickle cell anemia in Africa. This disease causes red blood cells to carry less oxygen due to the squashed nature of all the red blood cells. This condition causes people to die younger, in 1973 life expectancy for a sufferer was 17, and it is now 50 and above. However, sickle cell anemia is a natural immunity against malaria. The life expectancy for someone with malaria is far lower.[[Sickle cell disease, QualityHealth, 13th January 2011, http://www.qualityhealth.com/health-encyclopedia/in-depth-reports/sickle-cell-disease accessed 25/05/11]]
We need different genes in the human gene pool even if we do not see the benefit of them now.
|
[
{
"docid": "23d8e805804db8efa5ae89b4041e4b61",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a73f70260b5e013ddfde8e864a6f98de",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.\n\nBy having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.\n\nGenetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dbf70057adac57d2e9c750144a8f024",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Most genetic screening tests can also be performed at home, with results sent only to the user and so kept secretly – away from insurance companies and health institutions. It is then the domain of the individual itself if he or she wants to disclose this information. Discrimination based on the genetic pool currently seems to be rare but since thousands of Americans are accustomed to a health insurance system in which known risks carry financial penalties, they do not disclose this information (1).\n\nRegarding genetic screening in the UK, there is a voluntary ban among members of the Association of British Insurers from being able to access the results of genetic tests (apart from Huntington’s disease). This ban will be again reviewed in the year 2014 (2).\n\n1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/health/24dna.html?pagewanted=1 , accessed 22/05/2011\n\n2. Impact, http://www.impact-study.co.uk/public/geneticsandcancer/genetictesting/positiveandnegativeaspects , accessed 22/05/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48e38aa525c9417a3fc7951c6772389",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it.\n\nMainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity).\n\nAlso it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1).\n\n1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4757193.stm , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c30eaff4c2f51f03c08776d5d170c69",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Modern society discriminates itself against the principles of individuals choosing self-determination and parental rights when it comes to the opposite case. There are high double standards when for example a couple chooses that their child should be deaf, just as they are.\n\nThis was the case with Tomato Lichy and his partner Paula, who wanted IVF in order to produce a child that was deaf- just as they are. The “embryo bill in 2008 (UK)” passed with a clause that exactly prohibits such actions as the deaf couple in limits of their right to self-determination and parenting requested.\n\nClause 14/4/9 states that, \"Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.\" (1)\n\nSpecifically this means that in cases of embryos the law makes parents choose the healthy embryo over the embryo of their decision. It is unjust to appeal towards the rights of self-determination and parental rights if they are not applicable to all parents and if the distinction is made based on arbitrary definitions of valuable physical characteristics.\n\n1 Dominic Lawson, Of course a deaf couple wants a deaf child, 03/11/2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-of-course-a-deaf-couple-want-a-deaf-child-794001.html , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c53dbb717b3abb0763d869090463196d",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable.\n\nThat life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)\n\n1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-pregnancy , accessed 05/24/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f720a0ea0053e930eec967be58dd9db",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen The genetic test does not prevent or cure anything. It merely asserts whether someone is a carrier of a genetic disorder. The testing would be paid for by couples to see if they are both carriers of this disorder. The decision then a couple can make based on the screenings is then to:\n\na) not have children together\n\nThe idea of these tests preventing people from marrying is mental. In our liberal society surely it is love that counts in a relationship, not how well your genes fit together to make the perfect child.\n\nb) choose in vitro fertilization\n\nIn order to make them prevent the disease, so that the defected genes (in some cases) can be manipulated.\n\nc) abort the present fetus\n\nWe pressurize and take away choices of the parents, by giving them the knowledge, regarding their children.\n\nA professor of Law at Harvard University, Paul Freund also takes up the position that an unborn child has the right to random genes. Freund states, 'The mystery of individual’s personality, resting on the chance combination of ancestral traits, is the basis of our sense of mutual compassion and at the same time, of accountability.\"\n\nProfessor Freund suggests that the ethical approach to advances in genetic technology allows the random assortment of genes to take effect, thereby protecting the sanctity of the human individual (1).\n\nFurther on with the advances in medicine genetic conditions and disorders no longer present such a burden on the children and enable them to live a good lifestyle and have high survival rates.\n\n1. Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=wmjowl , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71c7f4b9279470564bfc8ce7b40299f4",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted\n\nGenetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be \"human life\", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an \"option to purchase\". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become.\n\nViews of doctors and also future parents regarding the value of their unborn children’s lives are changing.\n\nIn a survey taken in New England (USA), there was a substantial majority in favor of genetic screening for a wide range of disorders. About 11 per cent of the couples have also admitted to wanting to abort a child that was genetically predisposed to obesity. A condition with which it is possible to live a good lifestyle (1).\n\nWith allowing more and more genetic screening and abortions / manipulations based on genes we are making life more of a commodity.\n\n1.Jim Leffel, Genetic Technology, Engeneering Life: Human Rights in a Postmodern Age, http://www.equip.org/articles/genetic-technology , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c63f425b1d0f114555e0ee6d383c085",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders\n\nSeen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable.\n\nThat life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)\n\n1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-pregnancy , accessed 05/24/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b67a66f300bd7147550da013c8b12f2",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information\n\nMost diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database.\n\nHealth insurance companies in America and life insurance companies in Britain will be very keen in the use of this data in order to give higher premiums to those who show positive for certain diseases.\n\nSuch genetic screening then may lead to companies demanding information about clients before ensuring them.\n\nThis fear of insurance in the US being denied due to genetic predispositions is not groundless. A study conducted by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in 2008 proves a similar point. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers (hypothetical cases) decided, they would deny coverage, charge more or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results (1).\n\n1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/health/24dna.html?pagewanted=1 , accessed 22/05/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dbae12e9951e3b66af28d430121fc94",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information\n\nThis argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights\n\na) Self-determination\n\nSome proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the \"screening\" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy \"life\".\n\nb) Parental rights\n\nCurrently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all.\n\nExperts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1).\n\nMainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be.\n\n1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=wmjowl , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ddb0991a56fed8838bac7a11730a625",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members\n\nSome of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4.\n\nAnother is also Down Syndrome, where half of the sufferers have heart defects, increased risks of types of leukemia and high risks of dementia. Physical and mental limitations are also a feature of such a defect which causes many children to die early. (2).\n\nSo it is the duty of any society to prevent such sufferings for both child and parents at any cost or method. A similar view is shared among the Jewish community, who has problems with a high prevalence of Tay Sachs syndrome. They believe that due to the psychological and physical repercussions of the birth of a child with the genetic disorder it is better to screen and choose a healthy embryo (or abort the present pregnancy). (3)\n\nSo because such diseases cause great distress for the involved parties and we could prevent it, it is morally right for society to engage in genetic screening.\n\n1. National institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/taysachs/taysachs.htm , accessed 05/24/2011\n\n2.Medline Plus 10/18/2010, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm , accessed 05/24/2011\n\n3. Daniel Eisenberg, A Jewish perspective on issues related to screening Tay-Sachs disease, http://www.aish.com/ci/s/48909807.html. , accessed 05/24/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f51ba8f8f5122ad1bab7f5db90f1955",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases\n\nWe have a duty to the child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, we should exercise that right.\n\nA child that has Cystic Fibrosis (CF) produces too much fluid and mucus in the lungs, pancreas and passage ways, which then become thick, sticky and hard to move. This means that germs get stuck in the mucus and the child suffers from a lot of infectious diseases. Thus lead to reduced life expectancies (1).\n\nFor the gene detectable blood disease Thalassemia in its moderate and severe forms children may need very frequent blood transfusions, which over time lead to damage of heart, liver or other organs. Or may need stem cell transplants (bone marrow transplants) in order to get these transplants children will usually need to undergo radiation and need to have the luck of a well matched donor (2).\n\nCongenital malformations, deformations, chromosomal abnormalities are the leading causes of 20% of infant deaths in the US. More than 6,000 single-gene disorders - which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births - such as cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis or sickle cell anemia.\n\nDr. Gregor Wolbring (University of Alberta in Canada) sees embryo selection as \"a tool for fixing disabilities, impairments, diseases and defects\"(3).\n\nIf we have ways to prevent children from such suffering and can manipulate only with those genes so that they do not have to suffer, we should do so.\n\n1. KidsHealth, http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/lungs/cf.html# , accessed 05/21/2011\n\n2. Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalassemia/DS00905 , 05/21/2011\n\n3. MedicineNet.com http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2820 , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7bef113d19756b98701b87819a2c20b2
|
Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information
Most diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database.
Health insurance companies in America and life insurance companies in Britain will be very keen in the use of this data in order to give higher premiums to those who show positive for certain diseases.
Such genetic screening then may lead to companies demanding information about clients before ensuring them.
This fear of insurance in the US being denied due to genetic predispositions is not groundless. A study conducted by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in 2008 proves a similar point. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers (hypothetical cases) decided, they would deny coverage, charge more or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results (1).
1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/health/24dna.html?pagewanted=1 , accessed 22/05/2011
|
[
{
"docid": "6dbf70057adac57d2e9c750144a8f024",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Most genetic screening tests can also be performed at home, with results sent only to the user and so kept secretly – away from insurance companies and health institutions. It is then the domain of the individual itself if he or she wants to disclose this information. Discrimination based on the genetic pool currently seems to be rare but since thousands of Americans are accustomed to a health insurance system in which known risks carry financial penalties, they do not disclose this information (1).\n\nRegarding genetic screening in the UK, there is a voluntary ban among members of the Association of British Insurers from being able to access the results of genetic tests (apart from Huntington’s disease). This ban will be again reviewed in the year 2014 (2).\n\n1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/health/24dna.html?pagewanted=1 , accessed 22/05/2011\n\n2. Impact, http://www.impact-study.co.uk/public/geneticsandcancer/genetictesting/positiveandnegativeaspects , accessed 22/05/2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a73f70260b5e013ddfde8e864a6f98de",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.\n\nBy having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.\n\nGenetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23d8e805804db8efa5ae89b4041e4b61",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48e38aa525c9417a3fc7951c6772389",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it.\n\nMainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity).\n\nAlso it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1).\n\n1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4757193.stm , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c30eaff4c2f51f03c08776d5d170c69",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Modern society discriminates itself against the principles of individuals choosing self-determination and parental rights when it comes to the opposite case. There are high double standards when for example a couple chooses that their child should be deaf, just as they are.\n\nThis was the case with Tomato Lichy and his partner Paula, who wanted IVF in order to produce a child that was deaf- just as they are. The “embryo bill in 2008 (UK)” passed with a clause that exactly prohibits such actions as the deaf couple in limits of their right to self-determination and parenting requested.\n\nClause 14/4/9 states that, \"Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.\" (1)\n\nSpecifically this means that in cases of embryos the law makes parents choose the healthy embryo over the embryo of their decision. It is unjust to appeal towards the rights of self-determination and parental rights if they are not applicable to all parents and if the distinction is made based on arbitrary definitions of valuable physical characteristics.\n\n1 Dominic Lawson, Of course a deaf couple wants a deaf child, 03/11/2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-of-course-a-deaf-couple-want-a-deaf-child-794001.html , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c53dbb717b3abb0763d869090463196d",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable.\n\nThat life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)\n\n1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-pregnancy , accessed 05/24/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f720a0ea0053e930eec967be58dd9db",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen The genetic test does not prevent or cure anything. It merely asserts whether someone is a carrier of a genetic disorder. The testing would be paid for by couples to see if they are both carriers of this disorder. The decision then a couple can make based on the screenings is then to:\n\na) not have children together\n\nThe idea of these tests preventing people from marrying is mental. In our liberal society surely it is love that counts in a relationship, not how well your genes fit together to make the perfect child.\n\nb) choose in vitro fertilization\n\nIn order to make them prevent the disease, so that the defected genes (in some cases) can be manipulated.\n\nc) abort the present fetus\n\nWe pressurize and take away choices of the parents, by giving them the knowledge, regarding their children.\n\nA professor of Law at Harvard University, Paul Freund also takes up the position that an unborn child has the right to random genes. Freund states, 'The mystery of individual’s personality, resting on the chance combination of ancestral traits, is the basis of our sense of mutual compassion and at the same time, of accountability.\"\n\nProfessor Freund suggests that the ethical approach to advances in genetic technology allows the random assortment of genes to take effect, thereby protecting the sanctity of the human individual (1).\n\nFurther on with the advances in medicine genetic conditions and disorders no longer present such a burden on the children and enable them to live a good lifestyle and have high survival rates.\n\n1. Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=wmjowl , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71c7f4b9279470564bfc8ce7b40299f4",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted\n\nGenetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be \"human life\", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an \"option to purchase\". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become.\n\nViews of doctors and also future parents regarding the value of their unborn children’s lives are changing.\n\nIn a survey taken in New England (USA), there was a substantial majority in favor of genetic screening for a wide range of disorders. About 11 per cent of the couples have also admitted to wanting to abort a child that was genetically predisposed to obesity. A condition with which it is possible to live a good lifestyle (1).\n\nWith allowing more and more genetic screening and abortions / manipulations based on genes we are making life more of a commodity.\n\n1.Jim Leffel, Genetic Technology, Engeneering Life: Human Rights in a Postmodern Age, http://www.equip.org/articles/genetic-technology , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f123f9b96f0141093d2379f7b169ea24",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic destabilisation\n\nNatural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions.\n\nFor instance, the spread of sickle cell anemia in Africa. This disease causes red blood cells to carry less oxygen due to the squashed nature of all the red blood cells. This condition causes people to die younger, in 1973 life expectancy for a sufferer was 17, and it is now 50 and above. However, sickle cell anemia is a natural immunity against malaria. The life expectancy for someone with malaria is far lower.[[Sickle cell disease, QualityHealth, 13th January 2011, http://www.qualityhealth.com/health-encyclopedia/in-depth-reports/sickle-cell-disease accessed 25/05/11]]\n\nWe need different genes in the human gene pool even if we do not see the benefit of them now.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c63f425b1d0f114555e0ee6d383c085",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders\n\nSeen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable.\n\nThat life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)\n\n1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-pregnancy , accessed 05/24/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dbae12e9951e3b66af28d430121fc94",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information\n\nThis argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights\n\na) Self-determination\n\nSome proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the \"screening\" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy \"life\".\n\nb) Parental rights\n\nCurrently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all.\n\nExperts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1).\n\nMainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be.\n\n1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=wmjowl , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ddb0991a56fed8838bac7a11730a625",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members\n\nSome of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4.\n\nAnother is also Down Syndrome, where half of the sufferers have heart defects, increased risks of types of leukemia and high risks of dementia. Physical and mental limitations are also a feature of such a defect which causes many children to die early. (2).\n\nSo it is the duty of any society to prevent such sufferings for both child and parents at any cost or method. A similar view is shared among the Jewish community, who has problems with a high prevalence of Tay Sachs syndrome. They believe that due to the psychological and physical repercussions of the birth of a child with the genetic disorder it is better to screen and choose a healthy embryo (or abort the present pregnancy). (3)\n\nSo because such diseases cause great distress for the involved parties and we could prevent it, it is morally right for society to engage in genetic screening.\n\n1. National institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/taysachs/taysachs.htm , accessed 05/24/2011\n\n2.Medline Plus 10/18/2010, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm , accessed 05/24/2011\n\n3. Daniel Eisenberg, A Jewish perspective on issues related to screening Tay-Sachs disease, http://www.aish.com/ci/s/48909807.html. , accessed 05/24/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f51ba8f8f5122ad1bab7f5db90f1955",
"text": "osophy life religion family house would allow parents genetically screen Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases\n\nWe have a duty to the child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, we should exercise that right.\n\nA child that has Cystic Fibrosis (CF) produces too much fluid and mucus in the lungs, pancreas and passage ways, which then become thick, sticky and hard to move. This means that germs get stuck in the mucus and the child suffers from a lot of infectious diseases. Thus lead to reduced life expectancies (1).\n\nFor the gene detectable blood disease Thalassemia in its moderate and severe forms children may need very frequent blood transfusions, which over time lead to damage of heart, liver or other organs. Or may need stem cell transplants (bone marrow transplants) in order to get these transplants children will usually need to undergo radiation and need to have the luck of a well matched donor (2).\n\nCongenital malformations, deformations, chromosomal abnormalities are the leading causes of 20% of infant deaths in the US. More than 6,000 single-gene disorders - which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births - such as cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis or sickle cell anemia.\n\nDr. Gregor Wolbring (University of Alberta in Canada) sees embryo selection as \"a tool for fixing disabilities, impairments, diseases and defects\"(3).\n\nIf we have ways to prevent children from such suffering and can manipulate only with those genes so that they do not have to suffer, we should do so.\n\n1. KidsHealth, http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/lungs/cf.html# , accessed 05/21/2011\n\n2. Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalassemia/DS00905 , 05/21/2011\n\n3. MedicineNet.com http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2820 , accessed 05/23/2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4b7708df5135a9ecf6cede67ad32c4a2
|
Makes the affected laws effectively inoperable in their totality.
If people wish to carry knives in public or smoke marijuana, the rational thing for them to do under this legislation is to falsely claim to be Sikh or Rastafarian respectively so that they are not subject to these laws. This logic applies to all laws affected by this legislation.
The government would first have to work out what religions count for this legislation, the government would likely want to exclude at least some extremist cults and would not want to allow individuals or small to make up their own religions. Equally problematic would be that the government would need to regulate what all these beliefs are so as to prevent new beliefs from springing up to get around laws. The government would then have to work out ways of working out if someone is legitimately part of a religion or not, this would be practically impossible. The ultimate effect would be that all laws affected by this legislation would be so easy to get around that they may as well not exist.
Instead the government should look to accommodate religious values within British law by making the necessary changes in specific instances rather that introducing a carte blanche to override the laws of the land. [1]
[1] Petre, Jonathan et al, ‘Bishop: Impossible to have sharia law in UK’, The Telegraph, 8 February 2008,
|
[
{
"docid": "3ceeb28058212fb8ae2f9cf7a769be05",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes This harm can be avoided very easily. Avoiding these laws becoming completely inoperable would actually be quite simple. People who observe nothing but the potentially illegal parts of the religion would not be considered part of that religion, particularly if they only began identifying as part of that religion once this legislation was passed.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "53fb473921b33de00642ee503726214d",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being.\n\nThis legislation will not be seen as weakness but as tolerance.\n\nAs for honour killings, they are not religious but cultural and are denounced by leaders of all the world’s major faiths [1] as such they have nothing to do with this legislation and would not be perceived as having anything to do with this legislation.\n\n[1] “Honour Crimes.” BBC Ethics Guide. 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fee961344b527bc70d1412a19f532114",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to.\n\nThe status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c3ee09e4d6cf4d11157cd7f4ceef080",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and, as such, undermines the government’s power as the ultimate authority.\n\nThe likely effect is that religious groups will begin to see themselves as above the law and will begin to disregard to government to an ever greater extent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f74e0e7629dab6ef8aa1606968c0b1",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]\n\nThe opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.\n\n[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a58a286be5d720319a3f5b8a5290688f",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.\n\nIn terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "705ee4f01d70f0a790a88562be79a5bf",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.\n\nThe government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae10925f1bc8e76d39d4eece261b4336",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.\n\nThis legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some things that everyone would agree is based upon religious belief such as the Sikhs carry knives but there may be other cases where a minority of the religion believes that something is required by their religion, should this still be allowed? Similarly would this apply to every single religion and sect or would the state have to define what it counts as a religion and limit it only to major religions?\n\nBy extension, this legitimises actions like honour killings, which are killings done in the name of religion. Although they would not be directly allowed by this legislation, they would be implicitly encouraged and those carrying it out would try to claim that it was carrying out a religious belief in order to get protection from the law. Already 1 in 10 young British Asians back honour killings, they do not need any encouragement from changes to the law like this. [1]\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘One in 10 ‘backs honour killings’’, 4 September 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45a505c0a0b2bdffa274d06e2c4d1df2",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Causes divisions in society.\n\nOne of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.\n\nMoreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.\n\nThis will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.\n\n[1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4016da2c89260abc0d8a9e20efbc7b3",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Relationship between state and religious population\n\nPeople who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the government limits theirs. This kind of limitation of how to worship or what traditions and beliefs to follow can be part of the cause that leads to members of that religion feeling not welcome and discriminated against, ultimately leading to extremism. Allowing religious beliefs to override government laws would relieve these feelings and dramatically improve religious people’s relationship with the state.\n\nThis improvement in relationship would severely reduce the likelihood of anti-government feelings and general civil unrest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38c684f4b1ef8639b2760fc75849817c",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Relationship between state and organised religion.\n\nCurrently, the state and organised religion are often seen as diametrically opposed. [1] For example the state often worries about the threat of religious extremists. This causes a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly. As the Bishop of Liverpool puts it “Church and politics are not two parallel lines; rather they are two live wires, side by side, which when they touch should ignite and explode.” [2] Thus when Rowan Williams suggested Sharia might be accommodated his comments created a political storm.\n\nThis legislation would show that we do value and respect religious freedom and rights and would improve our relationships on both of these fronts.\n\n[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press 1992\n\n[2] The Bishop of Liverpool, ‘Church and Politics: “My Kingdom is not of this world” Really?’, St Wilfrid Lecture, 18th February 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfff5ef3f88d66e2cb8c2a11726a61f",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes People have a right to freedom of religion.\n\nFreedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life.\n\nUnder the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights.\n\nThe government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation.\n\n[1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e65c693d00f390cd60b9ed0ef6646fc1",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Delegitimises religious\n\nCurrently, bombings and attacks in the name of religion are a big problem. These are mostly caused by people feeling that their religion is being discriminated against. [1] For example Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that \"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.\" He believes this would help maintain social cohesion because Muslims would not need to choose between \"the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty\". [2]\n\nIf the government is seen to be supporting all religions then these attacks will lose their credibility and will inevitably be reduced in both severity and frequency.\n\n[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’’, 7 February 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b5f3846da6a8490a22f58d4cdeab9731
|
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:
Term limits are flagrantly undemocratic. If a legislator is popular and desired by the people to continue to represent them, then it should be their choice to reelect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is a serious insult to voters' intelligence. The electorate can discern for itself whether a legislator is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for reelection simply removes the right from people to make important political decisions. It is not the duty of the state to encourage more candidates to run in elections to replace politicians who are already popular and doing a suitable job1. Should the US people have not been allowed to elect Franklyn D. Roosevelt for his third term? FDR was a very popular and successful president who brought the United States out of depression and won the Second World War and it was those very successes that lead the American people to reelect him. The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should represent them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government.
|
[
{
"docid": "673eb7fef99d13d2f4b8c02c7214d610",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits promote greater choice in candidates and protect democracy1. While people may not be able to vote for a legislator again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party's candidate. Limiting individual politicians to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system through efforts at self-enrichment and influence-peddling.\n\n1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4119ee36bb13b1317767ee102e9bd3c3",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The dynamics of party primaries are not the same in all jurisdictions, and efforts at promoting moderate and capable candidates can still be made after the institution of term limits. Furthermore, new politicians may in fact be more willing to work on bipartisan projects, as they are not inculcated in the culture of confrontation that predominates between political parties in many legislatures. For this reason politicians of longer standing might actually be a hindrance to bipartisan compromise. It is far better to allow for a preponderance of political views by making the legislature more open. The best way to accomplish this is clearly to impose term limits.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d661bccd2e2ff8ee22c3ba27a8d6d5b2",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Legislators may gain skill in maneuvering in the legislative arena with time, but they also gain a propensity for power grabbing and self-advancement. Politicians of long standing use their knowledge of the working of the legislature as much for the lobbyists and interest groups, who they prefer to work with rather than young, inexperienced legislators. The power of lobbyists is magnified by the solidity of the channels of political influence created by high rates of incumbency. Term limits actually serve to restrict the power of interest groups, and instead places emphasis on the production of progressive legislation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9809467827e5bb542f5b3537aa695331",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b489b4bafa76a73e01e3188c1ae82f11",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem is not be solved by simply instituting term limits. Rather, such results mean an effort must be made to educate voters and to fight voter apathy. Neither of those things is accomplished by limiting the choice of the voters.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03879b0c8c9f5fda1b9b552458689ee5",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c750037d1000596347a121a0a128fc",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9147d6138bd3bafa4808616f705286f5",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, placing that form of political participation over a more lasting one makes no sense. Furthermore, career politicians have valuable experience that can be extremely useful in the forming of legislation and the conducting of public business. Term limits destroy this valuable resource by casting people out of the halls of government at a fixed point, regardless of the worth they might still impart to the legislative process.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "326a1d16830bb25d130ae73d40050366",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:\n\nWith term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that \"mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors.\"(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). \"Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments\" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. \"Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy\". University of Wolongong.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1992c9e26e5cf2460714e2880419bdd",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:\n\nTerm limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. \"Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea\". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0af3902e174617ec18f147ae16992186",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom:\n\nThe process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. By forcing politicians out of the legislature on the basis of term limits, the depth of knowledge and experience available to the assembly is reduced, often to its serious detriment [1] . Seasoned politicians are also needed to help newcomers acclimate to the environment of the legislature; something first-time elected individuals are completely unused to. Naiveté on the part of new policymakers who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Lobbyists and special interest groups will seek to influence politicians while they develop their first impressions of life in the legislature, and will immediately capitalize upon any perceived vulnerability. Luann Ridgeway a Republican senator in the Missouri senate argues that term limits mean “we rely more on the trustworthiness of those established -- government relations individuals and staff persons -- because we have to”, [2] this would include more taking advice from the long standing lobbyists. Furthermore, legislation often requires lengthy periods of negotiation, that require not only the experienced hand of long-standing legislators, but also the continuity they offer. If legislators are constrained by term limits their time horizons are narrowed causing them to put too much emphasis on near-term, rather than long-term legislation. Clearly, term limits undermine the effective operation of government and deny the legislature an invaluable source of experience and ability.\n\n[1] Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State LegislativeProfessionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\n[2] Coleman, Emily and Bushnel, Michael, (2009). “Legislators attribute heightened partisanship to term limits”, Missourian, 16th May 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980413b02c5d2676bb4cf36ce0348b52",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:\n\nIncumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected [1] . Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.\n\n[1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa5fae986c8bbf77ed21de6b42358bf8",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:\n\nPower is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.\n\n1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. \"Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships\". America.gov.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01bc3c96577da46dbfcf8d20ee131f46",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:\n\nIt is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making legislative service a leave of absence, rather than a means of permanently absconding from a productive career in the private sector, requires that there be term limits 1. Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for life will keep people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. Representative assemblies work best when they function as citizen legislatures, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter the legislative forum for a brief time to do their country service, and then leave again to reenter society as private citizens2. Such citizen legislators who enter politics to make their mark and then leave are far more desirable than the career politicians of today who focus only on building their own power influence, rather than considering the people they were elected to represent. US states with 'citizen legislatures', where the state legislature is part time with short sessions so allowing its members to hold other jobs, were at the top of freedom indexes. New Hampshire was both the most minimal parliament and the state with most fiscal freedom according to the Ruger-Sorens Index.3 1 Will, George. 1993. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Restoration of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press. 2 Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 3 Rugar, William and Sorens, Jason. 2011. \"The Citizen Legislature: How Reasonable Limits on State Legislative Salaries, Staff and Session Lengths Keep Liberty Alive\" Policy Brief, Goldwater Institute,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "068021a745c87112adfb8a340ecbcd0e",
"text": "eral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:\n\nA major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.\n\n1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. \"Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits\". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. \"Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement\". Time.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
142650874bae2aa16db24d0ddcc9f390
|
The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised
There was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them” [1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis.
The cost of building the bomb was enormous. At 2.2 billion dollars the Manhattan project cost about the same as the drive to get to the moon in the sixties, but the comparison is not adjusted for inflation. [2] The vast majority of the cost, and of the 130,000 employed in the project, was not in the development but in the building of the factories to produce the fissile material. The opportunity cost of that 2.2 billion is surely huge, how many more bombers and tanks or how many more medicines and bandages could it have bought? Not using the bomb and squandering that investment would bring that opportunity cost to life; the question is not just how many would die in months more war but how many might not have to build something unused.
[ 1 Robert Oppenheimer quoted by Richard Rhodes, ‘The Atomic Bomb in the Second World War’ in C. C. Kelley (ed.), Remembering the Manhattan Project : Perspectives on the Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Legacy, (River Edge NJ, 2005), p.18
[2] ibid p.22
|
[
{
"docid": "dac415e6264d4d5e81621336b4dee790",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and Having a weapon is hardly a good argument for using one, society would fall apart if ‘I have a gun thus I must shoot someone’ became an accepted maxim. Since war is policy by other means the ultimate weapon is one that achieves its policy objectives without the need to be actually be used. As to the cost, the $2.2bn translates to a little below $7,000 for each Japanese life taken.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "46c5ffb64abfe3569b8974843cbd4472",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The alternatives to either invasion or atomic bombing are covered in the previous counterpoint. It can only be said that none of them are without a high human cost, though invasion spearheaded by an atomic barrage is surely the worst. The principle of advantage of the conventional bombing option being that it would be easily justifiable as only quantitively different to what the Japanese had already meted out themselves. The blockade similarly has easy justification in not being a deviation from any accepted standards as well as only indirectly attacking the home islands while putting the onus on the Japanese government to avoid starvation. Really in order to find a less costly alternative then diplomacy has to be raised for which refer to the second response argument.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50ca4934546da849cc8f11c0b9575d4e",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and It can be argued that conventional bombing could have brought about a Japanese surrender without the recourse to the use of the atomic bombs. Compared to conventional bombings the atomic bombs caused disproportionate amounts of civilian casualties. The Strategic Bombing survey estimated that in the 9 months prior to the surrender there were 806,000 Japanese civilian casualties inclusive of A-bombs, of which 330,000 were deaths. Therefore nearly a third of civilian deaths were as a result of the atomic bombings (and that is only counting those who died immediately). In Hiroshima 72% of buildings were destroyed, in Nagasaki 37.5% of buildings were destroyed. However in a conventional raid Yokohama was 47% destroyed in an hours bombing, for the comparatively light cost of 5,000 civilian fatalities. [1] Of course some conventional raids, particularly fireraids caused very heavy casualties, in particular the Tokyo firebombing of March 9th 1945 killed 100,000 and destroyed 15.8 square miles. However that is still three times the area destroyed of Hiroshima. Since the only possible justification for attack on cities is the destruction of infrastructure conventional bombing was similarly effective while being the cause of many fewer civilian deaths.\n\nAccording to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” [2] The accuracy of this prediction has since been called into question, [3] after all the allies dropped far more bombs on Nazi Germany without securing surrender. However the fact remains that the conventional bombing campaign was only just starting to get going and might have achieved decisive results.\n\nPossibly even more important for the prospects of a conventional victory, and one not clouded by the stigma of massive bombing campaigns against civilians, was the maritime blockade. By the end of the war Japan had only 700,000 tons of shipping remaining, she had started the war with 6,337,000 tons. Of 122,000 sailors in the merchant marine 27,000 were killed 89,000 wounded. For an island nation reliant on imports not just to run its industry but also to keep its people fed this was devastating. The result was starvation in the Japanese home islands. After the war it was reported that up to 10 million would die of starvation without American food aid, as a post war report to the Diet (Japanese Parliament) put it ‘the greatest cause of defeat was the loss of shipping’. [4]\n\n[1] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm pp.20, 23-24.\n\n[2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm p.26.\n\n[3] Gian Peri Gentile, ‘Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan’, in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) pp.123-4.\n\n[4] Joel Ira Holwitt, “Execute against Japan”: The US decision to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, (College Station TX, 2008) pp.166-9\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f66f3068f9f3955a6d2a15ed972dd3ad",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The justification for the second bomb relies principally upon the argument that Japan would presume there was only one A-bomb if another was not dropped, so the destruction of Nagasaki was a necessary evil to force surrender just as much as that at Hiroshima. Indeed senior Japanese figures did argue that there was only one bomb, and even in one case that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not atomic at all, simply a very big conventional bomb. The Chief of the Naval General Staff Toyoda Soemu thought “it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.” [1] This was a view that Anami Korechika, the army minister, shared until it was shattered by the second bomb although even then he said “The appearance of the atomic bomb does not spell the end of war” [2]\n\n[1] Admiral Toyoda quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.37.\n\n[2] Army Minister Anami quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.40.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc2e26493420b7851e86fe47123d1ebd",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the use of the Atomic Bomb did not raise profound moral questions with allied policymakers. Civilians had been intentionally targeted from the air since the start of the war and both Japanese and German cities had been already subjected to relentless bombardment. There was no compelling reason for politicians to view the Atomic bomb any differently from the London blitz or the Dresden raid. [1]\n\nThe Hague conventions had been systemically honoured only in the breach for the previous six years and so would not have given Truman or his advisors any particular heartache. The radiation effects were as yet unknown and so there was no reason to treat atomic bombs as anything more sinister than a mighty conventional bomb would be. Had the radiation been known about then it might have moved them into a category akin to chemical or biological weapons, which were already frowned upon. Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague convention in 1899. [2] This did not of course prevent their widespread use in WWI but the horrified reaction to the use of mustard gas and other agents lead to the Geneva Protocol [3] which came into force in 1928 although the US was not a signatory. In practice Atomic weapons have not been since treated as equivalent to poison gas or other ‘analogous devices’ and thus the International Court of Justice has said that they do not breach the Hague conventions or the Geneva Protocol. [4] Therefore as these were the only international laws in force at the time of the action the dropping the bombs were not illegal acts.\n\n[1] Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered’, Foreign Affairs, vol.74, no.1, Jan.- Feb., 1995. p.135.\n\n[2] Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp\n\n[3] Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol_to_Hague_Convention\n\n[4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 54-6. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf?PHPSESSID=61c346606e8c49...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7de215e4f2f4e817b384cdcdcee9bb2c",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and Offering the preservation of the Monarchy was unlikely to have altered the outcome of the conflict by bringing peace before August 6th. This was the only concession to the Japanese that was even considered by the US government. It was thought that even this would be very hard for the American public to swallow. Truman’s personal feeling was also that nothing short of an unconditional surrender would do to avenge Pearl Harbour. [1]\n\n[1] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) p.291.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfed48f22acba83a8d3c25995dabb416",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack\n\nThe US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island. [1]\n\nThe US army widely disseminated a figure of half a million casualties for the conquest of Japan. This was however only the figure for public consumption and some calculations went much higher. [2] On top of the US losses the same amount and probably considerably more Japanese deaths would have to be added. The estimates of US losses were so bad that atomic bombs were actually considered for use in clearing the landing beaches.\n\nChief of Staff George C. Marshall argued “We had to visualize very heavy casualties unless we had enough atomic bombs at the time to supplement the troop action.” [3] Invasion was therefore not really an alternative to the A-bomb use at all. Although the use of the bomb in a battlefield situation might be more justifiable that it was considered shows the ignorance of the radiation effects that might well have been a disaster for US forces as well as Japanese.\n\n[1] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p.59,71\n\n[2] D. M. Giangreco, \"A score of bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas\": President Truman and casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan’, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007), p.88\n\n[3] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell’, pp.74-5.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da06a75fecbeb2c70c53b560d248322",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender\n\nFrom late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender.\n\nAccording to Henry L. Stimson “We, [the administration] felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisors, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire.” [1]\n\nThe United States Strategic Bombing Survey reckoned that to cause equivalent damage done by the Atomic Bombs using conventional weapons would require 345 B29’s. [2] However it is not the fact that the Atomic bombs saved hundreds of B29 missions that is the crucial element. That is the sheer terror that the destructive power of the atomic bombs. This made the Atomic bombs of a different order to any number of conventional B29 missions and was a crucial factor in bringing about the Japanese surrender. If the fact that a city could be levelled in a single night could make the Japanese surrender they would have done so many months previously, and many times over. Important members of the Japanese government agreed with Stimson’s assessment of the importance of shock. Prime Minister Suzuki said “The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks. I believed such an opportunity could not be afforded by B-29 bombings alone.” [3]\n\n[1] Secretary of War, Henry Stimson quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.27.\n\n[2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm p.24.\n\n[3] Suzuki Kantaro quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p. 35\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3cfd4d8a9f33633514586f1001523e0",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and A negotiated peace would have been preferable to the dropping of the atomic bombs\n\nIt is conventional to argue that Japan was defeated already and so the bombings were unnecessary as Sadao Asada points out this confuses defeat with surrender. However such a position seems equally to confuse surrender with peace. That there had to be an unconditional surrender seems almost unquestioned. Most wars do not end in an unconditional surrender of one side or the other, Japanese defeat was plain so a negotiated peace would normally have been set in motion when the US saw the terrible casualties it might be forced to take in its push for total victory. The Americans learnt of Japanese willingness to negotiate in July, on the 13th Secretary of the Navy Forrestal wrote in his diary “The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today... Togo said further that the unconditional surrender term of the Allies was about the only thing in the way of termination of the war” [1] Stimson, Grew and Forrestal aimed at persuading president Truman to offer the Japanese promise of the preservation of the monarchy as an alternative to unconditional surrender. [2] Ultimately the Potsdam declaration set the unconditional surrender policy in stone. [3] Offering such a condition would certainly have strengthened the peace party within the Japanese cabinet and allowed them to present further resistance by the generals and admirals as endangering the monarchy. [4] However, on its own this would probably not have lead to peace, the cabinet would still have been split 3-3 with the Army and Navy ministers both opposed and with vetoes on policy. Even the most belligerent of the Japanese Cabinet, Army Minister Anami’s conditions were preservation of the Imperial institution, no military occupation of the home islands, Japanese forces were to demobilize and disarm themselves and war criminals were to be prosecuted by the Japanese themselves. [5] While these conditions are obviously ripe for exploitation, would they really disarm and try war criminals? they are not unreasonable. Just because there was no hope that the US would accept these conditions, they fly in the face of the Potsdam Declaration from which the allies would not deviate, does not mean that another alternative to unconditional surrender should not be considered as an alternative to the dropping of the Nuclear bombs.\n\n[1] Secretary Forrestal quoted by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge MA, 2005) p134.\n\n[2] Campbell Craig and Sergay Radchenko, The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War, (New Haven, 2008) p.69\n\n[3] Potsdam Declaration, http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html\n\n[4] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) pp.290-1.\n\n[5] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p. 39.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "880df64cb1e5a2f4e562dd58ec71c54c",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre\n\nThe first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima: “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.” [1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped.\n\nThere were significant other factors in play as well. Before the second bomb was dropped the Japanese had learnt of the Soviet attack which dashed their last hopes of mediation for a favourable settlement and they were not optimistic of their chances in that conflict, even the army’s planners expected Manchukuo’s capital Changchun would fall in two weeks. [2] Although the Cabinet was deadlocked 3 to 3 this was the case both before and after the news of Nagasaki came in, the point of fact that the US had more than one bomb although a shock to those opposed to surrender did not alter their position. Ultimately the Emperor was forced to intervene on the side of the proponents of peace, his mind had been made up even before the first bomb. It is arguable that Hiroshima was necessary to push him into acting, which was unprecedented but the Nagasaki bombing was entirely superfluous. Historian Sadao Asada’s opinion is that the second bomb was unnecessary. [3]\n\n[1] Emperor Hirohito quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism p.33.\n\n[2] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.36.\n\n[3] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, pp.38, 41-2.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0692f3558de6a14e863bafa89454bd04",
"text": "ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The bombing was immoral and illegal\n\nThe use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use.\n\nAlbert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in.\n\nThe use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft!\n\nClearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force.\n\n[1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25.\n\n[2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp\n\n[3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807.\n\n[4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf?PHPSESSID=61c346606e8c49...\n\n[5] ibid. para. 78.\n\n[6] ibid. para. 91.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
eeb5b22ebe94661647f0e63262658c4e
|
The concept of "foetal rights" is an attack on the autonomy of women
The culture of foetal rights reflects a dangerous litigious trend in American society, and implies a view of pregnant women as being nothing more than baby-carrying machines whose independence and autonomy should be restricted and whose motivations should be questioned at every turn. If this has implications for the abortion debate, then those implications are profoundly damaging to women in general. In any case, the mother of a wanted baby has entirely different responsibilities toward the unborn foetus from the mother of an unwanted baby - that’s why our society allows both abortions and antenatal classes.
|
[
{
"docid": "c8228a2745fb41a9d90cbe1fd334746e",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa7b8ef7c6c88a5ae3161d7319b21014",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions There is no medical consensus on this issue. Where Dilation and Extraction is performed without inducing partial birth then it has the potential to be just as safe for the mother.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb6407e18934fb4334115241bdfc17d5",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a80309a5092cfa97b00283079f1137b",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9be39c52a12d8cd7a57d37688ff2f915",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "937c8b2ecd66769dc43a8938395a1ca8",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be9f6fc99b37b5f42df35e69b23ed55c",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5857b2730333cccd2f2933e21e76efa4",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general\n\nPartial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb337aa886d4aae8ef898d32bd90da7e",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative\n\nThe D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves.\n\n[1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/modules/reproductiveHealth/abortion.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c649bf641dcc162d43426e872f2a5ff",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong\n\nIf birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a6856324012056f36bc5840b00ab9c3",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption\n\nTragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable.\n\n[1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010, http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/health-information/directory/s/pregnancy-what-happens-stages#textBlock190283\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29ef2be28c929576489e22766f8eebd7",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions The foetus feels pain\n\nPartial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child.\n\n[1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005, http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.short\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "361b5d4dfa25cdd3dcd77bb08315eb0d",
"text": "nancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards\n\nhere is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003. [1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic; [2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise.\n\n[1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011, http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx\n\n[2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998, http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/partial-birth.htm\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
81596f3413f04974e316b8aebdafdd70
|
Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide
It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1]
[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480
|
[
{
"docid": "e84b076d006ef5c268b8c225ceb2d908",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This is easily solved. Similarly to doctors who assist in cases of abortion or even executions doctors must have the option of opting out. However, once it is proven that this model is ethically good, it is likely that there are doctors who will realise the potential of this method and who will want to participate. After all, this is a motion that relates to the exceptional cases, so even if most doctors opt out there will still be doctors who will be willing to operate under this scheme.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d103332b034846f451f27b6d98a055fa",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This argument is selfish and ignores how love might push a person to make great sacrifices. We might have imperfect information about our importance, but whatever information we have, gives us an idea of how to assess complicated situations. If we were to follow this logic, self-determination would be impossible\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f57d09530ee3c69b71d70c2567787f",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs.\n\n[1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "468f33df6b34c85a8b329cea53b776ca",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied.\n\nModern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1]\n\n[1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4. http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/29/44-6/pdf/1-s2.0-S0041134512005039-main.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12129128c3d9f9095ba228470f7944b9",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1]\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61a777c121e1fa3c0009cf5809ab6891",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1]\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f91e7064c1c7366e08051c1921870edb",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.\n\nMoreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bf0581fbea76c665f6432799e2f06a6",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings.\n\nAs to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs.\n\n[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bff8b5084bec56b714b250922de84f2",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b20ec319ccf5d13cc2b2d647874b14",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45361218de34d3bf172c8eb9a0d30ecc",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another\n\nIn many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed.\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b73121a0c01dca6ed75e60a2f2087d7",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide\n\nThe purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person [1] .\n\n[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271e834b500dc2bd6e1035b66f4439b8",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Self-preservation is our primary moral duty\n\nMany people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b8221ab192511386c87e9736108296",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others\n\nBy allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens.\n\nEven when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ad56d707053cc13a81378b4c41a1aee",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life\n\nIt is not fair to ask of a parent to live with the guilt of having been able to save their child and not doing so. Believing that they are guilty of their child’s death can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of suicides. [1]\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13bbe913693da02d8979a351ad55564f",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Greater awareness will increase donations\n\nThere is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years. [1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012. [2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death. Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved.\n\n[1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx\n\n[2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013, http://dw.de/p/17Dth\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f53478af37ce5ba4f1a0c2efa1a1a61",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself\n\nIt is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fde2071c8622ebe09e4fdcf9cdfb418",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is a natural thing to do\n\nWe are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost.\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b1e790b61c7c43ecdcc1a6eb44aeb4",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense We should preserve the person with greater quality of life\n\nWe have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2]\n\nFurthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life.\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.\n\n[2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48.\n\n[3] ibid\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8fb3464a904bf0e350f3b1a777e4ed51
|
The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another
In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed.
[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.
|
[
{
"docid": "12129128c3d9f9095ba228470f7944b9",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1]\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d103332b034846f451f27b6d98a055fa",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This argument is selfish and ignores how love might push a person to make great sacrifices. We might have imperfect information about our importance, but whatever information we have, gives us an idea of how to assess complicated situations. If we were to follow this logic, self-determination would be impossible\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f57d09530ee3c69b71d70c2567787f",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs.\n\n[1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "468f33df6b34c85a8b329cea53b776ca",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied.\n\nModern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1]\n\n[1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4. http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/29/44-6/pdf/1-s2.0-S0041134512005039-main.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e84b076d006ef5c268b8c225ceb2d908",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This is easily solved. Similarly to doctors who assist in cases of abortion or even executions doctors must have the option of opting out. However, once it is proven that this model is ethically good, it is likely that there are doctors who will realise the potential of this method and who will want to participate. After all, this is a motion that relates to the exceptional cases, so even if most doctors opt out there will still be doctors who will be willing to operate under this scheme.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61a777c121e1fa3c0009cf5809ab6891",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1]\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f91e7064c1c7366e08051c1921870edb",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.\n\nMoreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bf0581fbea76c665f6432799e2f06a6",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings.\n\nAs to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs.\n\n[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bff8b5084bec56b714b250922de84f2",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b20ec319ccf5d13cc2b2d647874b14",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eac2a5e4588836f0c0bc469efbdb5d7",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide\n\nIt is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1]\n\n[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b73121a0c01dca6ed75e60a2f2087d7",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide\n\nThe purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person [1] .\n\n[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271e834b500dc2bd6e1035b66f4439b8",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Self-preservation is our primary moral duty\n\nMany people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b8221ab192511386c87e9736108296",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others\n\nBy allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens.\n\nEven when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ad56d707053cc13a81378b4c41a1aee",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life\n\nIt is not fair to ask of a parent to live with the guilt of having been able to save their child and not doing so. Believing that they are guilty of their child’s death can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of suicides. [1]\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13bbe913693da02d8979a351ad55564f",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Greater awareness will increase donations\n\nThere is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years. [1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012. [2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death. Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved.\n\n[1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx\n\n[2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013, http://dw.de/p/17Dth\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f53478af37ce5ba4f1a0c2efa1a1a61",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself\n\nIt is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fde2071c8622ebe09e4fdcf9cdfb418",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is a natural thing to do\n\nWe are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost.\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b1e790b61c7c43ecdcc1a6eb44aeb4",
"text": "thcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense We should preserve the person with greater quality of life\n\nWe have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2]\n\nFurthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life.\n\n[1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.\n\n[2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48.\n\n[3] ibid\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
77237193ec6837d1046a89871a3ad6f0
|
Why a flat tax is fairer
In a welfare state such as the United Kingdom, everyone enjoys the same access to services provided by the government, and so it should stand to reason that everyone should also contribute equally to the funding of those services. As not all individuals are equal in their wealth and income, it is impossible to do this on the basis of everyone paying in the exact same numerical amount of money. However, this parity can be achieved by everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax to the government, and this is exactly what a flat tax is, and so equality in contribution to government services (mirroring equality in access to government services) is achieved. This principle of equality is important for two reasons: firstly, if wealthier citizens feel they are being unfairly burdened by the current requirement that they pay higher percentages of their income to fund government services than those on lower incomes, they may feel a disincentive to work hard (which creates wealth for the whole economy), or may even be driven abroad to states with lower rates of taxation or to tax havens. [1] Secondly this removes the ability of the majority of a population to engage in what the French economist Bastiat called 'legalized plunder', where they (as the majority of voters) assign higher percentages of income tax to the wealthy in order that the state may appropriate and redistribute it to them for their own use. [2] With a flat tax in place, there would be no ability for anyone to vote for a tax rise simply on other people and not on themselves, and thus such policies would receive more consideration and not be used by the majority simply to appropriate the property of others through the law. Thus a flat tax is fairer as it equalized the basis on which everyone pays for access to equal services, and prevents a poorer majority from victimizing a wealthier minority through punitive rates of income tax for the wealthy, which may cause them to flee the country for other states with less taxation.
[1] Ramos, Joanne “Places in the Sun”. The Economist. Feb 22nd 2007 http://www.economist.com/node/8695139?story_id=8695139
[2] Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2007
|
[
{
"docid": "8e4d724c3b5e9b2096588163d305c7cc",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax The aim of a welfare state is to allow provide access to vital services for all, but especially for those who could not otherwise afford them -to lift the burden of poverty somewhat. A flat tax, however, would actually increase the burden on the poorest. [1] For example, if under a progressive taxation system the highest rate of tax was 50%, and the lowest 10%, if tax revenues were to be maintained when switching to a flat tax system, then it would be impossible to simply extend the 10% rate of tax to all, as this would mean a large effective drop in revenue (as 40% less is collected from the top bracket with no gains anywhere), and so the rate paid by all would have to be somewhere between 10% and 50%, meaning an effective tax rise on the poorest and middle classes, while the richest receive an effective tax cut. This hardly seems 'fair' or in keeping with the aims of a welfare state, as the argument purports to serve.\n\n[1] Ulbrich, Holley. “Flat Tax Is Class Warfare”. U.S. News & World Report. April 12, 2010. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/12/flat-tax-is-class-warfare\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "18ff6accc9a736feda457b19227c071c",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax The much-acclaimed simplicity of the flat tax in fact makes it too simple to properly reflect a very complicated reality. Goods and services vary in order to make them accessible to different people; there exist both luxury and economy versions of the same goods because companies recognise that people have differing ability and willingness to pay, and hence price these goods differently. It would therefore be strange for the state to tax both kinds of good at the same rate, as if their respective buyers had the same discretionary income and could both afford to buy the product with the additional uniform flat tax on it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ed5ccde0da7e4e16c1289720e870275",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax This argument ignores the fact that there is still another channel for the allocation of resources, namely the government. In the given example of agriculture tax credits verses manufacturing without such credits, if resources did not go into agriculture because of the special credit, they would have gone not into manufacturing but into government (through the closing of loopholes, and thus the disappearance of a means of being taxed less), and government is far less neutral to the market than any other allocation. Therefore, if the argument assumes that the best allocation of resources is that which most closely resembles a genuinely free market, then in this example a flat tax produces a worse situation, as any allocation of economic resources in the private sector (no matter how 'distorted) is closer to the free market (and thus 'better), than if those resources went into the hands of the government. So if reflecting the market is the uppermost concern, a flat tax is a worse proposition as it brings into higher rates of taxation many areas which currently are less taxed ('loopholes'), thus distorting the market even further as even more resources fall into government hands\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc38dbc6ba0aa758abc21b1735b7b07f",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax This argument fails to account for the fact that elected governments are even worse at determining what is 'fair' when it comes to tax policy than the arbitrary circumstances described when the government has the option to tax different persons at different rates on the basis of their income. In effect this allows the less wealthy majority to decide what the 'circumstances' of the more wealthy minority mean they 'should' pay in taxes, which may in fact be inaccurate and based more upon a desire to 'punish' the wealthy and appropriate their resources for the majority in an unfair manner. This populist tendency in elected governments is what makes them so bad at deciding 'fairly' based upon 'circumstances', not sectional or class interests, and so why the power to set different tax rates to different people should be taken out of the hands of the government by instituting a flat tax.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef45a30d0b2c98ba041de966f2d3ecae",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax The status quo, whereby governments select what areas to tax and at what rate, leads to even more examples of regressive taxation than is alleged of flat taxes. For example, the so-called 'sin tax' on alcohol and cigarettes are designed to limit people's consumption thereof (and thus mitigate the harms of excessive consumption and abuse), but in fact have highly regressive results. This is because those on lower incomes are both more likely to consume large amounts of alcohol and cigarettes, and because this expenditure thus represents a larger share of their income. Consequently, by proportion the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes actually redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. [1] Therefore there is no reason to believe that government discretion in what is taxed and how much actually leads to less regressive taxation; it may even be more so.\n\n[1] Barro, Josh. “Alcohol Taxes are Strongly Regressive”. National Review Online. March 25, 2010 http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/39020/alcohol-taxes-are-strongly-re...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2708479101a48de108a8f2a5f0b554f6",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax This argument again assumes that governments do a good job of deciding what areas and sectors 'deserve' loopholes and which do not. The fact that the distribution of resources would change if we abolished certain tax loopholes is probably a sign that these areas have been artificially inflated in terms of their resource allocation by these very tax credits and loopholes, and should therefore be returned to market standards. The selection of many of these sectors for credits may well have been done not on an economic but rather on a political basis, for example in order to protect jobs in some sectors and help boost a government's votes at election time.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9539bed8c778897c8371583073fb537a",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax Why a flat tax is simpler:\n\nThe current system of 'progressive' taxation whereby higher earners are taxed a higher percentage of their income requires the identification and administration of multiple different tax brackets spanning the entire spectrum of earnings in a nation. This causes a number of problems. The brackets themselves may be largely arbitrary cut-off lines based around round numbers, with no real justification as to why one person increasing their earnings by as little as £1000 should lead to them suddenly being propelled to a new tax bracket, when the actual difference to their income is negligible in overall terms. Moreover, the administration of multiple tax brackets is incredibly complicated and difficult, requiring every taxpayer to record their income and expenditure (in order to try and qualify for tax exemptions and 'loopholes') in meticulous detail and then to properly express this on lengthy and complicated government forms, a process which can cause anger, frustration and alienation amongst taxpayers. [1] In order to try and prevent tax evasion, governments are consequently compelled to have large bureaucracies that oversee this process and comb through looking for fraud, a costly and lengthy process. This may be contrasted with a flat tax system by taking the example of taxes on salaries paid to employees by a company under both systems. In the status quo, a tax collector must be aware in detail of exactly what is being paid to whom in order to ensure that everyone declares their income truthfully, allowing them to be placed in the correct bracket. However, under a flat tax, a tax collector could simply withhold the fixed flat tax rate (for example 20%) of the total company's payroll without needing to know what was paid to whom, as every pound is taxed at the same rate and thus it does not matter what goes to whom. This would allow for a massive simplification of tax forms, and for the down-scaling of the costly government departments dedicated to administering the different tax brackets. Thus the simplicity of a flat tax is a significant advantage.\n\n[1] The Economist Special Report “The case for flat taxes” The Economist. Apr 14th 2005. http://www.economist.com/node/3860731\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67a068b9fa37cd2b01edbf0664fe2295",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax Why closing tax loopholes is good:\n\nTax credits, deductions and loopholes distort resource allocation in a market situation because people respond to the differing tax rates and so put more resources into the areas which the loopholes apply to than they would otherwise. For example, current tax credits for investment mean that more resources go into investment than they would in the absence of that credit, as the returns on the placing of resources in this area are higher than others (as it is subject to a lower rate of tax). A government may even set certain tax credits and loopholes which favour certain industries or economic sectors, such as agriculture, on the basis that this is politically useful (in winning votes), when this again distorts resource allocation in the economy. These distortions may prove harmful as they cause certain sectors to be over-valued or over-invested in due to their favourable tax status, to the detriment and neglect of other more highly-taxed areas (for example, manufacturing) which may in fact be the more economically sound. A flat tax would abolish all 'credits' and 'loopholes' (and the politically-influenced government discretion which decides who gets credits and who does not) and therefore restore genuine market conditions without these harmful distortions. [1]\n\n[1] Rothbard, Murray. “The Case Against the Flat Tax”, The Free Market Reader. Auburn. Mises Institute. 1988 http://mises.org/rothbard/flattax.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da126161b5e8e98d058ac4f5e39d9448",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax Why tax 'loopholes' can be good:\n\nMany of the so-called 'loopholes' which a flat tax would close, by ending the exemptions given when you engage in certain kinds of expenditure under the current income tax system, are actually positive features which incentivize 'good' economic behaviour. One of the great advantages from owning a home, for example, is the resulting ability to deduct mortgage interest payments from taxes. This makes owning a home more expensive, meaning a greater number of people will be able unable or unwilling to buy homes, and will thus be forced to rent instead. This harms their long-term economic prospects, as their mortgage payments would result in them eventually owning an asset whereas rent payments bring them no return, and as self-owned homes become in less demand, the value of the homes which hundreds of thousands of people have already spent decades paying mortgages for will plummet. This would also cause great harm to the construction industry as fewer people can afford to buy new houses. Another example of a useful 'loophole' is that profits and capital gains are currently taxed differently. Under a flat tax they would both be taxed equally, representing a kind of 'double taxation' which would hit most heavily new, young venture capitalists going into high-risk industries, and so will stifle investment and innovation. Finally, the current income tax deductions we allow for charitable giving would be 'closed' with a flat tax, and hence charitable giving would become less affordable and less attractive to most taxpayers. [1] Thus, the closing of these 'loopholes' will in fact disincentivize what we consider to be beneficial economic behaviour, leading to a worse economic state for everyone.\n\n[1] Rothbard, Murray. “The Case Against the Flat Tax”, The Free Market Reader. Auburn. Mises Institute. 1988 http://mises.org/rothbard/flattax.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "151788ded11d581a0adfff6f5cd394ac",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax Why a flat tax isn't 'fair':\n\nThe arguments in favour of a flat tax argue that it is more 'fair' than other forms of taxation because it theoretically treats all persons and all forms of income equally by taxing them all at the same rate. This firstly fails to explain why any arbitrary percentage at which the tax is set is necessarily the 'fair' number and thus why everyone should receive the wonderful privilege of paying that exact number and not another based upon their income, expenditure and circumstances. The effect of the tax upon different individuals in different circumstances is thus key to the tax's supposed 'fairness', and to the undermining of this argument. For example, say both Mr Smith and Mr Jones earn £50,000 a year. However Mr Smith is a young man with few assets who relies upon his personal savings to finance a future business, and Mr Jones is an old man who has already built up or inherited £500,000 in assets. There is no clear reason why it is 'fair' for them to both pay the same rate of taxation despite their vastly different circumstances and the effect that the tax would have upon each of them, as Mr Jones' built-up wealth is protected, but Mr Smith's ability to build up assets and start a business in the first place is undermined. Or take the example of a sick man and a healthy man with the same income, but one of whom thus has much higher medical costs to pay. In the status quo they can be taxed differently (by allowing for income tax deductions for healthcare expenditure), however under a flat tax they would both be taxed the same, and it this would severely harm the sick man. Therefore, it seems counter-intuitive that in a world where all individuals are not the same and rates of taxation impact in highly different ways upon individuals depending on their differing circumstances (over which they may have little control), that every individual should pay exactly the same rate of tax, as if they were all the same. That hardly seems 'fair'.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "275197e7e41e468b9a8c9f60e5c9feb2",
"text": " philosophy political philosophy house would introduce flat tax Why a flat tax is regressive\n\n'Regressive' means that a tax impacts upon the poor more greatly than upon the rich, and this is exactly what occurs with a flat tax. Because everyone pays the same percentage, both a rich and poor man would for example pay 10% of their income in tax. As the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on their basic necessities (such as rent and food) than the rich do, as the rich have far more discretionary income to spend on luxuries. [1] Therefore, the impact of a 10% tax upon a poorer person is far greater in terms of limiting their ability to buy things they may want or need than it is upon a richer person, and consequently the harm of taxing a poorer person at the same rate as a richer person is greater than the harm of taxing a richer person at a higher percentage. Even if the 'personal allowance' allows the poorest in our society to exempt their income from the flat tax (which, of course, offers no relief to the middle class, who now pay a greater percentage tax on their income), they will still be significantly worse off as a consequence of the sales component of the flat tax. This again stems from the poorest spending a greater percentage of their income on necessities, which are not currently subject to sales tax (VAT). Once these VAT 'loopholes' (such as on books, children's clothing and food) are closed, the poorest will be harmed as they have to pay out even more to obtain the necessities of life. Both These increased harms breed resentment and can lead to social disorder, as was seen in the UK in 1990 when an attempt to introduce a 'poll tax' (a form of flat tax, with everyone paying the same charge) led to severe rioting in London and caused the plan to be abandoned. [2] Therefore the regressive nature of a flat tax makes it undesirable and more harmful than current forms of taxation.\n\n[1] Encyclopedia of Business. “Discretionary Income”. Enotes. http://www.enotes.com/biz-encyclopedia/discretionary-income\n\n[2] BBC On This Day “1990: Violence flares in poll tax demonstration” BBC Home http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/31/newsid_2530000...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
700b73aaecb49cf6d0d7f5b46193eef2
|
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused:
Every human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe. [1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning.
[1] Craig, William Lane. 1979. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan.
|
[
{
"docid": "29bbd7f1884f7f199ad5057ce0ce0518",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism If everything has a cause, then so too must the creator. Trying to place the deity outside of the spatio-temporal realm of the Universe is not a good argument, as nothing can be said meaningfully about what is “outside” the Universe, since we cannot observe or detect it. [1] Furthermore, saying God, or a creator, is uncaused and always existed is a poor argument because again this cannot be verified in any meaningful way. Irrespective of these problems, however, the argument falls down because it presupposes that the Universe has a cause, which is not necessarily the case. The very notion of causation is built into a temporal understanding of physics, which may not have been the case in the “pre-Universe”. Atheism can survive in the presence of science, theism cannot. If theism cannot survive, then neither can the agnostic middle ground based on the plausibility of theism.\n\n[1] Mackie, J. L. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e7c1752fbcffa8116d6ec75c802fba5d",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The rational position in the absence of positive evidence about God is not agnosticism, but atheism. While there is always a degree of doubt in every statement, this does not mean that negative claims about an entities existence can never be made. One can rationally state that fairies do not exist, even if there is no positive evidence for their non-existence. The very fact that no evidence exists for the existence of fairies, in the same way there is no evidence for the existence of God, is evidence of the negative. Thus, in the evidence of positive evidence for God, the rational default position is atheism.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd5b890c0da3234d2b9a9ff840a390b4",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Atheism does not seek to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc.; that is what science is for. Atheism is about the existence of God. The atheist position is supported, however, by the fact that there is no evident design in the Universe. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity in the Universe can be attributed to natural processes; the Universe, stars, and life are all the product of physical and chemical interactions. There is no mystery in the basic process. Complexity can be shown to arise from less complex conditions without aid of intelligent agency. Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. The complexity of the Universe does nothing to support claims for the existence of a deity, but rather showcases the wondrousness of the natural world.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "536cbc39aeedcf7a8d9dfd3848aa97da",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Evil may be thought of as the absence of good. It is a privation of goodness, just as darkness is the absence of light. God is good and the embodiment of goodness, but humans have been endowed with free will; they can make the choice not to follow the path of good. People have the ability to make both good and bad choices; if they did not then they would not truly be free. God’s greatest gift to humanity is thus also a heavy burden. [1]\n\n[1] Kekes, John. 1990. Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ee581a7fd2906c20c6da53f8df1cb3c",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism There is no strict dichotomy in theology. It is perfectly reasonable for someone unsure of whether God exists to take up a position of agnosticism, refusing to emphatically accept the existence of God or to deny it. Atheism is a positive claim insofar as it is a statement about the nonexistence of God. The burden of proof is thus not so clearly on the shoulders of theism alone. Rather, they are rival claims that each side must be supported by positive evidence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263dd84fd208ee8d47cfbf982ede8193",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98643ae6416732a5d273ed0cc9e23b96",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism It is unreasonable to suggest that God must reveal Himself to humanity, or to make His existence manifestly clear because that would undermine the value of faith. [1] Belief is an important component of all religious teachings because it is what allows the soul to transcend the material world and to commune with the divinity. For the religious, a life without faith is meaningless. Furthermore, if God were to make His desires and commands known, then free will would be undermined. It is necessary to the exercise of individual human agency that God not dictate every command to people. That is why God leaves life, at least on the surface, up to humans.\n\n[1] Maitzen, Stephen. 2006. \"Divine Hiddenness and the Demographics of Theism\". Religious Studies 42.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1761b66a2942627e98a1515b47d4347",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Science cannot explain everything. People have spoken of the existence of the soul and of God through the ages because reason and logic are sometimes not enough to explain the complexity and depth of the human experience. God is far more than the occupier of the gaps in scientific knowledge. However, the gaps are indicative of the limitations of science and show that faith and God can still have a place in human comprehension of the world.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77abd283531190ff0323b85c3aeda2fe",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Not everything about religion can be explained by evolutionary psychology. The existence of the soul and the concept of an ethereal God not directly connected to the processes of the world could not simply come about by way of evolution. Rather, there must be true meaning in these concepts, or they must at least be indicative of something other than the strictly material, contradicting the denials of atheism.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97668b6cd068ee05a3eb2432cb02419b",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The question of God’s existence does matter, not only to those who believe, but to understanding of life and its meaning. If there is a God and He has a plan for humanity and the Universe, then in order to understand the plan and to become an active part in it, one must try to understand in some sense the nature of God. However, even if God were disinterested in His creation, that would do little to affect whether He exists or not.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904df19aa0090e98f27cf00da20b9bfd",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:\n\nAtheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.\n\n[1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. \"Teleological Arguments for God's Existence\" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/\n\n[2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1def4bbda63c7dd40ab8ea55ba572d7d",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:\n\nIn a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other. [1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is.\n\n[1] Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (2008).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9685bd7d98d6dbc2c505005b24790f76",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:\n\nIt seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side. [1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate.\n\n[1] Borne, Étienne. 1961. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c61a6098436cf37024da1332eed2265",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:\n\nIf God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled. [1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition.\n\n[1] Tooley, Michael. 2009. “The Problem of Evil”. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5a84074771c15dbd3abc07da38f857e",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:\n\nGod, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim. [1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt.\n\n[1] Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Ealing: Transworld Publishers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c218a3918fccad71b1b961e78229d872",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:\n\nMany people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason. [1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being. [2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation.\n\n[1] Drange, Theodore. 1998. \"Nonbelief as Support for Atheism\". Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy.\n\n[2] Schellenberg, John. 2005. \"The Hiddenness Argument Revisited\". Religious Studies 41.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82234a6bc42d781bc609f8761918bc31",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:\n\nThe reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes. [1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions. [2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods.\n\n[1] Henig, Robin. 2007. “Darwin’s God”. The New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted...\n\n[2] Pinker, Steven. 2004. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Evolution”. Annual Meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Available: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15f9a7c08167c04be0bd52158dc87478",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:\n\nPhysics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding. [1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief. [2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy.\n\n[1] Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.\n\n[2] Russell, Bertrand. 1952. “Is There a God?” Campaign for Philosophical Freedom. Available: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "737a3ca1235dca0560ff2cc66d7d87f0",
"text": "epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:\n\nA creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible. [1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position.\n\n[1] Savage, C. 1967. \"The Paradox of the Stone\". Philosophical Review 76(1).\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a6dbec58a0ad870575d8bff699aad54f
|
Each man has a right to private property
The right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an "own" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.
1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011
2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.
|
[
{
"docid": "3bf5a7b49bb5bab5b7981e647e44e4bc",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive \"makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part1/2. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others3. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared.\n\n1 Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011\n\n2 Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011\n\n3 Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11, S(No. 1), 5-23. D. Reidel and Felix Meiner. Retrieved June 9, 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b6aa035ae13c35f1bd543941e1c1403",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "723b694a25ff492631b4ffff763843cc",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.\n\n1 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "510f7d06841c987812f9267ec3e189d0",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.\n\n1 Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeced73387fc0d9005544a759f953473",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.\n\nFree market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcf464228550185dae0f8972ee8a579c",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better In order to avoid economic crisis there is a need to return to a separation of commercial banking from investment banking which was e.g. implemented as legislation in the U.S.A. under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (scrapped under President Clinton in the 1990s). It is dangerous to allow banks to get into a position where they can be shut down by pursuing exciting, but high risk investment banking activities such as real estate speculations. The rationale for this separation is that it was a commercial banking crisis which posed the systemic risk, investment banks should be left alone from state interference and left to the influence of the market. \"This leaves a much more limited, and practicable, but still absolutely essential, role for bank supervision and regulation: namely, to ensure that the core commercial banking system is thoroughly sound and adequately capitalised at all times. The crisis can thus be resolved through a separation of the banks since the commercial banking won't be affected when investment banks go bust, the whole system will not be dragged down if only a few investment banks misbehave since commercial banks are the backbone of the economy. Financial crisis doesn't have to be something \"inherent\" in the capitalist system due to overproduction but can be accommodated through some regulations1.\n\n1 Lawson, N. (2009). Capitalism needs a revived Glass-Steagall. Financial Times. Retrieved June 14, 2011 1.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a49dcab4e362a1dc15e715ba0c48754",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better In practice capitalism and environmentalism do not necessarily have to clash with each other as can been proved by small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. Because the free market is directed ultimately by its consumers if the consumers demand more eco-friendly products the suppliers will also increase its efforts to be eco-friendly, thus the two of them don't have to be incompatible. Here are a few suggestions of how capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand: (i) energy-saving and other cost-cutting measures are advantageous to companies; (ii) maintaining good public relations with consumers involves having an eco-friendly policy1.\n\n1 Wallis, V. (2010). Beyond \"Green Capitalism.\" The Monthly Review. Retrieved 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc1f58d93aea00f81ced99b0b7ad2ce7",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The capitalist society enhances personal freedom\n\nThe Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 \"life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement\"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional \"fortunate circumstance\" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.\n\n1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c450ab9956f6a469bcd1cc361a56f373",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The market should determine the price of products and services\n\nA free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a \"dynamic capitalist system\" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).\n\n1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011\n\n2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2424dacd92f8789341ea41d82cb1fe",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole\n\nThe strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4\n\n1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n\n2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.\n\n3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n\n4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c590bf0511a79c3f6e623dc1750b78f",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism provides a more sustainable way of living\n\nCapitalism always acts on the cost of nature and its ecological balance. With its imperative to constantly expand profitability, it exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over time to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces nature to the exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. Socialism requires self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence. Capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless. The present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis (e.g. global warming) because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d9311623175af9463351636da08786",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism leads to a more humane equal society\n\nThe gap between poor and rich countries has never been as great as it is today, Warren Buffet's wealth was estimated to be a net worth of approximately US$62 billion in 20081, this while one in seven people on earth goes to bed hungry every night and 6.54 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year2. The absurd inequality between people's wages is because of the capitalist system, since the capitalist's only aim is to generate profit there is no reason to keep anything other than a minimum wage for the workers. In a globalized world, rich countries can outsource industries to poorer countries where workers will not expect so high a wage. The lower the wages a capitalist can pay to the labourers, the more profit he can generate. A capitalist does not care whether his labourers' living standards are good, acceptable or bad (although he does want to maintain a level where the labourers will not die or rebel), as long as they deliver the work for the lowest wage possible3. Therefore a company CEO can gain an absurd amount of money since he will reap all the profit made from all the labourers in his company while the lowest worker in the hierarchy will only earn enough to survive. The ordinary worker does not have a free choice whether he wants to work or not since he is at such an inferior bargaining position that he has to accept the capitalist's offer in order to survive. According to socialism this inequality is atrocious, it can by no means be justifiable that an ordinary labourer who works equally as hard, or harder than a CEO should struggle for his survival while the CEO lives in unimaginable luxury. In socialism, production and wages are directed to human needs, there is consequently no need to maximise profit and thus this gross inequality would be evened.4\n\n1 The World?s Billionaires: #1 Warren Buffett. (2008, March). Forbes.\n\n2 Hunger. (2011). World Food Programme. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n3 Engels, Frederick. (2005). The principles of Communism. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n4 Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Programme: I. Marxist Internet Archive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742279b1f28252946a444ed8120628de",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism\n\n'Credit bubbles' and resultant credit crunches (financial crisis) are inherent in the capitalist system. The economy undergoes a crisis whenever productive economic sectors begin to undergo a slowdown resulting in falls in profits. The recent crisis was caused due to the fact that there was an inflated investment in real estates. It was invested in with the purpose of keeping up profits which lead to a rise in the price of properties. Because of the increased price in property many people took out loans on their house and bought goods for the credit, thinking they could easily pay back their loans since their house would be more valuable at sale. However, since the rise of price was fabricated and not corresponding to an actual need (it was a bubble), house prices had to invariably go down at some point. When the prices eventually went down people could no longer afford to pay back what they had bought on their loaned houses and the installed payments were the trigger of the financial crisis. It could perhaps be said that the economy was surviving on money which did not exist (thereof the name 'credit bubble'). The result was that there were countless goods which no one could buy because no one could afford to pay for them, in turn this lead to a stagnation in the economy and hence to a crisis. A socialist system would not produce overconsumption since its aim is not profit but human needs, it would not have a reason to fabricate an investment for the sake of keeping up the profits and would therefore not cause a capitalist crisis1.\n\n1 Roberts, M. (2008). The credit crunch - one year on. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a1537d7b43b99f7aad613344c4ce8617
|
The market should determine the price of products and services
A free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a "dynamic capitalist system" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).
1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011
2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.
|
[
{
"docid": "510f7d06841c987812f9267ec3e189d0",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.\n\n1 Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3bf5a7b49bb5bab5b7981e647e44e4bc",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive \"makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part1/2. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others3. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared.\n\n1 Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011\n\n2 Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011\n\n3 Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11, S(No. 1), 5-23. D. Reidel and Felix Meiner. Retrieved June 9, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b6aa035ae13c35f1bd543941e1c1403",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "723b694a25ff492631b4ffff763843cc",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.\n\n1 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeced73387fc0d9005544a759f953473",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.\n\nFree market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcf464228550185dae0f8972ee8a579c",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better In order to avoid economic crisis there is a need to return to a separation of commercial banking from investment banking which was e.g. implemented as legislation in the U.S.A. under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (scrapped under President Clinton in the 1990s). It is dangerous to allow banks to get into a position where they can be shut down by pursuing exciting, but high risk investment banking activities such as real estate speculations. The rationale for this separation is that it was a commercial banking crisis which posed the systemic risk, investment banks should be left alone from state interference and left to the influence of the market. \"This leaves a much more limited, and practicable, but still absolutely essential, role for bank supervision and regulation: namely, to ensure that the core commercial banking system is thoroughly sound and adequately capitalised at all times. The crisis can thus be resolved through a separation of the banks since the commercial banking won't be affected when investment banks go bust, the whole system will not be dragged down if only a few investment banks misbehave since commercial banks are the backbone of the economy. Financial crisis doesn't have to be something \"inherent\" in the capitalist system due to overproduction but can be accommodated through some regulations1.\n\n1 Lawson, N. (2009). Capitalism needs a revived Glass-Steagall. Financial Times. Retrieved June 14, 2011 1.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a49dcab4e362a1dc15e715ba0c48754",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better In practice capitalism and environmentalism do not necessarily have to clash with each other as can been proved by small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. Because the free market is directed ultimately by its consumers if the consumers demand more eco-friendly products the suppliers will also increase its efforts to be eco-friendly, thus the two of them don't have to be incompatible. Here are a few suggestions of how capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand: (i) energy-saving and other cost-cutting measures are advantageous to companies; (ii) maintaining good public relations with consumers involves having an eco-friendly policy1.\n\n1 Wallis, V. (2010). Beyond \"Green Capitalism.\" The Monthly Review. Retrieved 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60b98d15b18e7a1ba3f9afca92b6c83",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Each man has a right to private property\n\nThe right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an \"own\" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.\n\n1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc1f58d93aea00f81ced99b0b7ad2ce7",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The capitalist society enhances personal freedom\n\nThe Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 \"life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement\"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional \"fortunate circumstance\" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.\n\n1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2424dacd92f8789341ea41d82cb1fe",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole\n\nThe strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4\n\n1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n\n2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.\n\n3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n\n4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c590bf0511a79c3f6e623dc1750b78f",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism provides a more sustainable way of living\n\nCapitalism always acts on the cost of nature and its ecological balance. With its imperative to constantly expand profitability, it exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over time to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces nature to the exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. Socialism requires self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence. Capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless. The present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis (e.g. global warming) because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d9311623175af9463351636da08786",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism leads to a more humane equal society\n\nThe gap between poor and rich countries has never been as great as it is today, Warren Buffet's wealth was estimated to be a net worth of approximately US$62 billion in 20081, this while one in seven people on earth goes to bed hungry every night and 6.54 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year2. The absurd inequality between people's wages is because of the capitalist system, since the capitalist's only aim is to generate profit there is no reason to keep anything other than a minimum wage for the workers. In a globalized world, rich countries can outsource industries to poorer countries where workers will not expect so high a wage. The lower the wages a capitalist can pay to the labourers, the more profit he can generate. A capitalist does not care whether his labourers' living standards are good, acceptable or bad (although he does want to maintain a level where the labourers will not die or rebel), as long as they deliver the work for the lowest wage possible3. Therefore a company CEO can gain an absurd amount of money since he will reap all the profit made from all the labourers in his company while the lowest worker in the hierarchy will only earn enough to survive. The ordinary worker does not have a free choice whether he wants to work or not since he is at such an inferior bargaining position that he has to accept the capitalist's offer in order to survive. According to socialism this inequality is atrocious, it can by no means be justifiable that an ordinary labourer who works equally as hard, or harder than a CEO should struggle for his survival while the CEO lives in unimaginable luxury. In socialism, production and wages are directed to human needs, there is consequently no need to maximise profit and thus this gross inequality would be evened.4\n\n1 The World?s Billionaires: #1 Warren Buffett. (2008, March). Forbes.\n\n2 Hunger. (2011). World Food Programme. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n3 Engels, Frederick. (2005). The principles of Communism. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n4 Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Programme: I. Marxist Internet Archive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742279b1f28252946a444ed8120628de",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism\n\n'Credit bubbles' and resultant credit crunches (financial crisis) are inherent in the capitalist system. The economy undergoes a crisis whenever productive economic sectors begin to undergo a slowdown resulting in falls in profits. The recent crisis was caused due to the fact that there was an inflated investment in real estates. It was invested in with the purpose of keeping up profits which lead to a rise in the price of properties. Because of the increased price in property many people took out loans on their house and bought goods for the credit, thinking they could easily pay back their loans since their house would be more valuable at sale. However, since the rise of price was fabricated and not corresponding to an actual need (it was a bubble), house prices had to invariably go down at some point. When the prices eventually went down people could no longer afford to pay back what they had bought on their loaned houses and the installed payments were the trigger of the financial crisis. It could perhaps be said that the economy was surviving on money which did not exist (thereof the name 'credit bubble'). The result was that there were countless goods which no one could buy because no one could afford to pay for them, in turn this lead to a stagnation in the economy and hence to a crisis. A socialist system would not produce overconsumption since its aim is not profit but human needs, it would not have a reason to fabricate an investment for the sake of keeping up the profits and would therefore not cause a capitalist crisis1.\n\n1 Roberts, M. (2008). The credit crunch - one year on. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ab2129a78370bdd863e21841c9b7b3c6
|
Socialism provides a more sustainable way of living
Capitalism always acts on the cost of nature and its ecological balance. With its imperative to constantly expand profitability, it exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over time to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces nature to the exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. Socialism requires self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence. Capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless. The present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis (e.g. global warming) because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation
|
[
{
"docid": "4a49dcab4e362a1dc15e715ba0c48754",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better In practice capitalism and environmentalism do not necessarily have to clash with each other as can been proved by small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. Because the free market is directed ultimately by its consumers if the consumers demand more eco-friendly products the suppliers will also increase its efforts to be eco-friendly, thus the two of them don't have to be incompatible. Here are a few suggestions of how capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand: (i) energy-saving and other cost-cutting measures are advantageous to companies; (ii) maintaining good public relations with consumers involves having an eco-friendly policy1.\n\n1 Wallis, V. (2010). Beyond \"Green Capitalism.\" The Monthly Review. Retrieved 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aeced73387fc0d9005544a759f953473",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.\n\nFree market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcf464228550185dae0f8972ee8a579c",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better In order to avoid economic crisis there is a need to return to a separation of commercial banking from investment banking which was e.g. implemented as legislation in the U.S.A. under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (scrapped under President Clinton in the 1990s). It is dangerous to allow banks to get into a position where they can be shut down by pursuing exciting, but high risk investment banking activities such as real estate speculations. The rationale for this separation is that it was a commercial banking crisis which posed the systemic risk, investment banks should be left alone from state interference and left to the influence of the market. \"This leaves a much more limited, and practicable, but still absolutely essential, role for bank supervision and regulation: namely, to ensure that the core commercial banking system is thoroughly sound and adequately capitalised at all times. The crisis can thus be resolved through a separation of the banks since the commercial banking won't be affected when investment banks go bust, the whole system will not be dragged down if only a few investment banks misbehave since commercial banks are the backbone of the economy. Financial crisis doesn't have to be something \"inherent\" in the capitalist system due to overproduction but can be accommodated through some regulations1.\n\n1 Lawson, N. (2009). Capitalism needs a revived Glass-Steagall. Financial Times. Retrieved June 14, 2011 1.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf5a7b49bb5bab5b7981e647e44e4bc",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive \"makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part1/2. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others3. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared.\n\n1 Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011\n\n2 Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011\n\n3 Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11, S(No. 1), 5-23. D. Reidel and Felix Meiner. Retrieved June 9, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b6aa035ae13c35f1bd543941e1c1403",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "723b694a25ff492631b4ffff763843cc",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.\n\n1 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "510f7d06841c987812f9267ec3e189d0",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.\n\n1 Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d9311623175af9463351636da08786",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism leads to a more humane equal society\n\nThe gap between poor and rich countries has never been as great as it is today, Warren Buffet's wealth was estimated to be a net worth of approximately US$62 billion in 20081, this while one in seven people on earth goes to bed hungry every night and 6.54 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year2. The absurd inequality between people's wages is because of the capitalist system, since the capitalist's only aim is to generate profit there is no reason to keep anything other than a minimum wage for the workers. In a globalized world, rich countries can outsource industries to poorer countries where workers will not expect so high a wage. The lower the wages a capitalist can pay to the labourers, the more profit he can generate. A capitalist does not care whether his labourers' living standards are good, acceptable or bad (although he does want to maintain a level where the labourers will not die or rebel), as long as they deliver the work for the lowest wage possible3. Therefore a company CEO can gain an absurd amount of money since he will reap all the profit made from all the labourers in his company while the lowest worker in the hierarchy will only earn enough to survive. The ordinary worker does not have a free choice whether he wants to work or not since he is at such an inferior bargaining position that he has to accept the capitalist's offer in order to survive. According to socialism this inequality is atrocious, it can by no means be justifiable that an ordinary labourer who works equally as hard, or harder than a CEO should struggle for his survival while the CEO lives in unimaginable luxury. In socialism, production and wages are directed to human needs, there is consequently no need to maximise profit and thus this gross inequality would be evened.4\n\n1 The World?s Billionaires: #1 Warren Buffett. (2008, March). Forbes.\n\n2 Hunger. (2011). World Food Programme. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n3 Engels, Frederick. (2005). The principles of Communism. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n4 Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Programme: I. Marxist Internet Archive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742279b1f28252946a444ed8120628de",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism\n\n'Credit bubbles' and resultant credit crunches (financial crisis) are inherent in the capitalist system. The economy undergoes a crisis whenever productive economic sectors begin to undergo a slowdown resulting in falls in profits. The recent crisis was caused due to the fact that there was an inflated investment in real estates. It was invested in with the purpose of keeping up profits which lead to a rise in the price of properties. Because of the increased price in property many people took out loans on their house and bought goods for the credit, thinking they could easily pay back their loans since their house would be more valuable at sale. However, since the rise of price was fabricated and not corresponding to an actual need (it was a bubble), house prices had to invariably go down at some point. When the prices eventually went down people could no longer afford to pay back what they had bought on their loaned houses and the installed payments were the trigger of the financial crisis. It could perhaps be said that the economy was surviving on money which did not exist (thereof the name 'credit bubble'). The result was that there were countless goods which no one could buy because no one could afford to pay for them, in turn this lead to a stagnation in the economy and hence to a crisis. A socialist system would not produce overconsumption since its aim is not profit but human needs, it would not have a reason to fabricate an investment for the sake of keeping up the profits and would therefore not cause a capitalist crisis1.\n\n1 Roberts, M. (2008). The credit crunch - one year on. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60b98d15b18e7a1ba3f9afca92b6c83",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Each man has a right to private property\n\nThe right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an \"own\" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.\n\n1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc1f58d93aea00f81ced99b0b7ad2ce7",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The capitalist society enhances personal freedom\n\nThe Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 \"life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement\"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional \"fortunate circumstance\" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.\n\n1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n\n2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c450ab9956f6a469bcd1cc361a56f373",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The market should determine the price of products and services\n\nA free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a \"dynamic capitalist system\" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).\n\n1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011\n\n2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2424dacd92f8789341ea41d82cb1fe",
"text": "nomy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole\n\nThe strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4\n\n1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n\n2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.\n\n3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.\n\n4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e62e570671a6203ca6aa4e0a794ca5a4
|
Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.
Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1.
1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times.
|
[
{
"docid": "9dbc2b2e8cbe659d670f31b934b87415",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our obligation to impose it.\n\nFirst, just because we believe that political self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "005d32a21563d7784805f8ea064f6281",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy First, it is not clear whether such a position is topical. Second, it is better to support protesters in this case, rather than taking the lead.\n\nTo begin with, it is not clear that assisting individuals in the fight for democracy is a valid interpretation of the phrase \"imposing democracy\": if the majority of people want it, perhaps it is not really an imposition. But second and more importantly, if internal movements exist, foreign nations should seek to strengthen and support those movements rather than impose a government. Democratic governments gain legitimacy through popular support: both in origin and in survival. A government chosen and filled by the citizenry is far more legitimate, and thus more likely to command respect and maintain order, than one enforced by a foreign regime.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd92733c909e0d3d953371f4ef0d432e",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy First, democracies are not necessarily more peaceful than other governments. Second, imposition of democracy is likely to fuel terrorism. First, it is not entirely clear that democracies have not gone to war: for example the Central Powers in WWI, although not classified as democracies per se, did have elected parliaments just like the Allies. Further, just because democracies have not gone to war in the past does not mean they will not in the future: a culture of negotiation within the democracy does not necessarily translate into a lack of aggression externally. Second, even if democracies are more peaceful, the imposition of democracy can threaten to world peace by fuelling terrorist movements. Invasions, particularly by Western nations, increase East-West tensions, galvanize terrorist groups by validating their claims that Western nations pose a threat. Indeed, in Osama bin Laden's public \"letter to the American people,\" he cited interventions in Somalia, Palestine, India, Chechnya, Lebanon and Iraq as reasons for the 9/11 attacks1/2.\n\n1 \"Do Democracies Fight Each Other?\" BBC.\n\n2 bin Laden, Osama. \"Full Text: bin Laden's 'Letter to America.' The Guardian.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f89523adcb115ca84c80740d8bf40b1c",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Interventions are far more likely to fail than to succeed. As explained further in Opposition Argument 2, empirically and logically imposed democracy is likely to fail. Governments can try and minimize the risk of failure, but it is inherent to the nature of imposition that a government is being instated against the country's will. It is consequently very unlikely to generate support and remain stable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66034f53a4575f5d503af4abed705ac0",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88db42010ea3af0e7fc36da5f742f407",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05aa42b79bb83b0ab61a35d86ee3121e",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.\n\nThere are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18fab7f3e0101640ed626b3584cf91ee",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f7ab4421bbed8d4530f75e78c57719e",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8789c9f2ea54fec760398e31b9af52c3",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.\n\nIf the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.\n\n1 Traub, James. \"Stepping In\", Foreign Policy\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63f01f44bd7b6964540a2ba300e1fa95",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Promoting democracy promotes peace.\n\nBy most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1\n\n1 \"Do Democracies Fight Each Other?\" BBC.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91b4dd7d5b90a85f3a08effa562e7670",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.\n\nCertain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2.\n\n1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael.\"Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan.\"\n\n2 Przeworski et al \"What Makes Democracies Endure?\" Journal of Democracy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4632dd78e19e0211072311d93162658e",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.\n\nIntervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful.\n\n1 Parrish, Karen, \"Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support\", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010,\n\n2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea482ee89b8c7c6678454af27d7b3914",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.\n\nPOINT\n\nThe motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to \"strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process\"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2.\n\n1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010,\n\n2 Doyle , Michael. \"Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy.\" The Huffington Post.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fca45b85d1bb187b731b2c592751f7",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty\n\nCountries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1.\n\n1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a55f73cbc15493897055671caf90376",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.\n\nDemocratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1.\n\n1 Doyle, Michael. \"Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy.\" The Huffington Post.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d07066d220a62dd4dc8fbb4d7ea6cd3f",
"text": "political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.\n\nUnless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2.\n\n1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. \"Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan.\"\n\n2 Doyle, Michael. \"Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy.\" The Huffington Post.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a9ddf099e117baf2f6d5e4e18d730154
|
The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem
Mineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3]
The Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6]
The second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case.
At the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill.
[1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/18/is-norman-baker-mp-serious-about-saving-the-environment/
[2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/oil-exploration-under-arctic-ice-could-cause-uncontrollable-natural-disaster-2349788.html
[3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/22/oil-spill-arctic-analysis
[4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648, http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/dec03/peters121803.html
[5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes & Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/microbes/index-eng.html
[6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707 http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/notice/75fr3706.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "e49ff621820ca1cc92d6ea05406fa28a",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The Arctic covers a huge area, of course there are some parts that should be protected. Just as with any other area in the world, areas of special scientific or environmental significance should be protected. However, just picking a line on the map and saying ‘no drilling north of here’ makes little sense. Why not a degree further south – or north? Protection should be awarded on a site by site basis, just as it would be anywhere else in the world.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6dcfcb1d3e14e1802aa2fbc1d0c50cc3",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region There is no reason to believe that a warming arctic will be a more competitive arctic or that the littoral powers will not be able to share the resources the region provides. Norway and Russia managed to fix their maritime borders in the Barents sea in order to exploit the potential resources there. [1] There being resources to exploit can just as often provide a motivation cooperate because if this does not happen then no one can exploit the resources.\n\n[1] Brigham, Lawson W., ‘Think Again: The Arctic’, Foreign Policy, Sept/oct 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/think_again_the_arctic\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3786561bbb5ef4e8732635ea8a2b722",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region This is oil and gas that we already know about and already have the expertise to exploit. The technology that we don’t yet have will only be developed if there is a demand for them – if the demand is now the technology will be developed. There is little point in us leaving this particular fuel to future generations when we are the first generation that has the technology to exploit such deposits. Future generations may improve on the technology and make it safer but the fundamental capability, the breakthroughs that make it possible have already happened. Future generations on the other hand will have their own breakthroughs in terms of new forms of power and new discoveries of fuels. They are then much less likely to need these resources than we do now.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b23cb6f3ece79f722e84c4c8d3e24fe7",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The obvious response to ‘growing demand’ being a problem would seem to be to reduce demand. When this has been attempted by states, there have been complaints that this was an unfair burden on business. Once the market adjusted, by increasing price, the same people demanded the right to increase supply. There is not particularly a growing demand for mineral resources; there’s a growing demand for energy and transport, it’s time to get serious about new, cleaner ways of meeting that demand. It has to be remembered that oil and gas from the arctic is not cheap; oil projects in the region cost billions before they even begin extracting. It is also questionable whether there really is 160 billion barrels of oil – it has not been explored so we do not know how much is there. To take an example of just such an uncertainty in a much less extreme environment China claims the South China Sea has up to 200 billion barrels of oil [1] while the US Energy Information Administration thinks it is between 5-22 billion barrels. [2]\n\n[1] Rogers, Will, ‘Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble’, The Diplomat, 4 February 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/04/beijings-south-china-sea-gamble/\n\n[2] ‘South China Sea’, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7 February 2013, http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=SCS\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f928acbc9dcbb8bb396f681f0d470ce1",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region There is noticeable absence in the list of countries set to replace the Middle East; That absence is Russia. It is hard to see how being subservient to Putin – with nuclear weapons and a massive military – is preferable to going cap in hand to the House of Saud. It is also unclear that this will be a benefit in terms of security and conflict. These countries are so dependent on oil that undermining their economies in this way could lead to more, not less conflict.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "047f1f017c158c0874e62589ae43745e",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region To start with, let’s not believe the line that local communities see this as an unadulterated good – they have very real concerns about the impact on their qualities of life. [1] It’s also untrue that workers elsewhere in the world see this as purely beneficial; many of these workers live with the toxic results of drilling and refining oils and they have expressed their concerns about the health effects. [2] Yes there is increased infrastructure but much of it is not of the sort that benefits communities, like oil pipelines. The one group for whom there is unalloyed joy at this prospect is a small one that comprises the owners and executives of oil companies. If opposition wants to make the case that some people want to keep the money flowing, fine. But at least be honest about who those people are.\n\n[1] Macalister, Terry, ‘Arctic resource wealth poses dilemma for indigenous communities’, The Guardian, 4 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/arctic-resources-indigenous-communities\n\n[2] Sturgis, Sue, ‘Pollution from oil refinery accidents on the rise in Louisiana.’, Southernstudies.org, 3 December 2012, http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/pollution-from-oil-refinery-accidents-on-the-rise-in-louisiana.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181e75383a4e26222eb0713dc88cda39",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition\n\nThe opening up of the arctic Ocean through climate change also opens up territorial claims as where there are resources at stake states are keen to make a claim so as to exploit them. For example in 2008 Russia’s then President Medvedev stated “Our first and fundamental task is to turn the Arctic into a resource base for Russia in the 21st century.” [1] Such competition for resources can lead to conflict as is increasingly being shown in the East and South China Seas.\n\nThe Antarctic Treaty however freezes these territorial claims, as would our proposed treaty. It also bans military activity so preventing any completion from getting out of hand. [2] The proposal would also ban the exploitation of the Arctic’s resources so reducing the cause of any conflict.\n\n[1] Keating, Joshua, ‘Medvedev makes a play for Arctic riches’, Passport Foreign Policy, 17 September 2008, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/09/17/medvedev_makes_a_play_for_arctic_riches\n\n[2] ‘The Antarctic Treaty’, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011, http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1dc817856f31701bbca22e38e3d4c99",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The Arctic should be saved for future generations\n\nAs we are using the resources of so much of the planet we should think about our legacy to future generations and leave the resources of the arctic to future generations. There are several reasons why we should do so.\n\nFirst of all drilling in the arctic means drilling in some of the harshest conditions on earth; with many of the projects being set up it means drilling in deep areas of the ocean that were inaccessible only a couple of decades ago. It also means drilling in freezing conditions while being potentially vulnerable to icebergs. Disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico have shown that oil companies are not prepared for oil disasters in deep water and repair would be more difficult a long way from civilization. [1]\n\nWhile the technology for this does not yet exist in future it probably will. It makes sense that we should leave such hard to reach resources until it is possible to extract it easily and safely. In the mean time we should be focusing our efforts on easier to reach resources and on developing alternatives. Such a policy will be beneficial to future generations both through making a greener economy and by leaving an emergency reserve of fossil fuel that can be used if necessary.\n\n[1] Lawless, Jill, ‘Tony Hayward: BP Was Unprepared For Gulf Oil Spill, 'We Were Making It Up Day To Day'’, HuffPost, 9 November 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/tony-hayward-bp-was-unpre_n_780814.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6236675d454ff47536b58a37f71de23",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region Creating jobs and opportunities\n\nThe areas covered are among the least developed in the world. Standards of education and income for indigenous peoples are very low and, to date, there has been little to motivate any nation to do anything about that. For example Canada is rated the 6th in the world by the UN’s Human Development Index but if the same index was rating Canada’s First Nations it would be 76th. [1]\n\nHowever, oil companies have already invested billions into exploration and the future nor these areas – as well as employees with existing skills in mineral extraction could be protected and enhanced by the opportunities offered by these new areas for development.\n\nWith those directly created and saved jobs come, literally, millions of others in transportation, distribution, energy supply and manufacturing and other sectors that depend on affordable energy costs. First nations in those areas that have oil booms have considerably better employment prospects; in Canada nationally natives aged 25-54 have an employment rate of 70.1% but in Alberta, the biggest oil producing region, the rate was 77.7%. [2]\n\nProposition rightly notes that pressures are growing on these industry sectors but fails to offer any solution that would ensure the livelihoods of millions of people around the world as well as revitalising some of the most dispossessed communities on the planet.\n\n[1] Silversides, Ann, ‘The North “like Darfur”’, CMAJ : Canadian Medical; Association Journal, 177(9): pp.1013-1014, 23 October 2007, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2025628/\n\n[2] The Vancouver Sun, ‘Alberta first nations benefit from oil boom’, Canada.com, 16 December 2008, http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=c37b4765-302e-45a2-a295-f22ed80c243d\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe49f291c49183f66814de301f82fb2c",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region There is a growing demand for mineral resources\n\nImproving the lives of its citizens is one of the most important roles of the state. And in terms of improving lives economic growth is usually considered the most important economic goal. [1] And in order to grow cheap fuel is needed. Nuclear energy is still precarious, and expensive, and renewable technologies cannot come close to meeting the existing needs of the west, let alone those of Russia, China, Brazil, India and the rest.\n\nWe are confronted with a stark reality – either use new sources of oil and gas while investing in replacement technologies or see a collapse in standards of living and life expectancy around the world.\n\nThere is much to be said for less carbon-based economies but we don’t have one yet. Until that option is available, the lights need to be kept on. The area north of the Arctic Circle is thought to contain as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered reserves. [2]\n\nThere are costs to exploiting those reserves – some of them environmental – but they pale into insignificance compared with the collapse of the global economy that would result from the projected increases in global oil and gas costs.\n\n[1] ‘53% Say Economic Growth More Important Than Economic Fairness’, Rasmussen Reports, 21 January 2013, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2013/53_say_economic_growth_more_important_than_economic_fairness\n\n[2] Nakhle, Carole and Shamsutdinova, Inga. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources: Evaluating Investment Opportunities. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, vol.10 issue 2, February 2012, http://www.academia.edu/1461205/Arctic_Oil_and_Gas_Resources_Evaluating_Investment_Opportunities\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fd48494e2e9ad727c33e3f7d614219",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region Relieving areas of conflict such as the Middle East\n\nCurrently the main supplies of oil and gas are from the Middle East with more coming from Africa and in the western hemisphere from Venezuela. These oil producers include many unstable regimes; many of them engaged in appalling human rights abuses against their own citizens. This is because regimes with such natural resources buy off their people meaning there is little accountability. [1] In addition to the obvious ethical issues that are created by continuing to fund brutal regimes that happen to be sitting on billions of barrels of crude, it’s also economically risky to be so much in the pocket of such regimes.\n\nSecuring energy security has long been an ambition for much of the West. The Carter Doctrine of 1980 “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” was a direct response to the oil shocks of the previous decade. [2] In Canada, the USDA and the Nordic states, the possibility of secure energy is made a reality by the Arctic.\n\nBy removing the world’s dependency on regimes such as Saudi Arabia, there is much greater room for manoeuvre when it comes to challenging those regimes records. It would also allow the west in particular to tie themselves to the interests of the peoples of the Middle East rather than to those of their rulers.\n\n[1] Chatelus, Michel, and Scehmeil, Yves, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262\n\n[2] Bacevich, Andrew J., ‘The Carter Doctrine at 30’, World Affairs, 1 April 2010, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/andrew-j-bacevich/carter-doctrine-30\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
dce6176e8040b06189b05b1c832dae37
|
Creating jobs and opportunities
The areas covered are among the least developed in the world. Standards of education and income for indigenous peoples are very low and, to date, there has been little to motivate any nation to do anything about that. For example Canada is rated the 6th in the world by the UN’s Human Development Index but if the same index was rating Canada’s First Nations it would be 76th. [1]
However, oil companies have already invested billions into exploration and the future nor these areas – as well as employees with existing skills in mineral extraction could be protected and enhanced by the opportunities offered by these new areas for development.
With those directly created and saved jobs come, literally, millions of others in transportation, distribution, energy supply and manufacturing and other sectors that depend on affordable energy costs. First nations in those areas that have oil booms have considerably better employment prospects; in Canada nationally natives aged 25-54 have an employment rate of 70.1% but in Alberta, the biggest oil producing region, the rate was 77.7%. [2]
Proposition rightly notes that pressures are growing on these industry sectors but fails to offer any solution that would ensure the livelihoods of millions of people around the world as well as revitalising some of the most dispossessed communities on the planet.
[1] Silversides, Ann, ‘The North “like Darfur”’, CMAJ : Canadian Medical; Association Journal, 177(9): pp.1013-1014, 23 October 2007, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2025628/
[2] The Vancouver Sun, ‘Alberta first nations benefit from oil boom’, Canada.com, 16 December 2008, http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=c37b4765-302e-45a2-a295-f22ed80c243d
|
[
{
"docid": "047f1f017c158c0874e62589ae43745e",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region To start with, let’s not believe the line that local communities see this as an unadulterated good – they have very real concerns about the impact on their qualities of life. [1] It’s also untrue that workers elsewhere in the world see this as purely beneficial; many of these workers live with the toxic results of drilling and refining oils and they have expressed their concerns about the health effects. [2] Yes there is increased infrastructure but much of it is not of the sort that benefits communities, like oil pipelines. The one group for whom there is unalloyed joy at this prospect is a small one that comprises the owners and executives of oil companies. If opposition wants to make the case that some people want to keep the money flowing, fine. But at least be honest about who those people are.\n\n[1] Macalister, Terry, ‘Arctic resource wealth poses dilemma for indigenous communities’, The Guardian, 4 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/arctic-resources-indigenous-communities\n\n[2] Sturgis, Sue, ‘Pollution from oil refinery accidents on the rise in Louisiana.’, Southernstudies.org, 3 December 2012, http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/pollution-from-oil-refinery-accidents-on-the-rise-in-louisiana.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b23cb6f3ece79f722e84c4c8d3e24fe7",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The obvious response to ‘growing demand’ being a problem would seem to be to reduce demand. When this has been attempted by states, there have been complaints that this was an unfair burden on business. Once the market adjusted, by increasing price, the same people demanded the right to increase supply. There is not particularly a growing demand for mineral resources; there’s a growing demand for energy and transport, it’s time to get serious about new, cleaner ways of meeting that demand. It has to be remembered that oil and gas from the arctic is not cheap; oil projects in the region cost billions before they even begin extracting. It is also questionable whether there really is 160 billion barrels of oil – it has not been explored so we do not know how much is there. To take an example of just such an uncertainty in a much less extreme environment China claims the South China Sea has up to 200 billion barrels of oil [1] while the US Energy Information Administration thinks it is between 5-22 billion barrels. [2]\n\n[1] Rogers, Will, ‘Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble’, The Diplomat, 4 February 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/04/beijings-south-china-sea-gamble/\n\n[2] ‘South China Sea’, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7 February 2013, http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=SCS\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f928acbc9dcbb8bb396f681f0d470ce1",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region There is noticeable absence in the list of countries set to replace the Middle East; That absence is Russia. It is hard to see how being subservient to Putin – with nuclear weapons and a massive military – is preferable to going cap in hand to the House of Saud. It is also unclear that this will be a benefit in terms of security and conflict. These countries are so dependent on oil that undermining their economies in this way could lead to more, not less conflict.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e49ff621820ca1cc92d6ea05406fa28a",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The Arctic covers a huge area, of course there are some parts that should be protected. Just as with any other area in the world, areas of special scientific or environmental significance should be protected. However, just picking a line on the map and saying ‘no drilling north of here’ makes little sense. Why not a degree further south – or north? Protection should be awarded on a site by site basis, just as it would be anywhere else in the world.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dcfcb1d3e14e1802aa2fbc1d0c50cc3",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region There is no reason to believe that a warming arctic will be a more competitive arctic or that the littoral powers will not be able to share the resources the region provides. Norway and Russia managed to fix their maritime borders in the Barents sea in order to exploit the potential resources there. [1] There being resources to exploit can just as often provide a motivation cooperate because if this does not happen then no one can exploit the resources.\n\n[1] Brigham, Lawson W., ‘Think Again: The Arctic’, Foreign Policy, Sept/oct 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/think_again_the_arctic\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3786561bbb5ef4e8732635ea8a2b722",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region This is oil and gas that we already know about and already have the expertise to exploit. The technology that we don’t yet have will only be developed if there is a demand for them – if the demand is now the technology will be developed. There is little point in us leaving this particular fuel to future generations when we are the first generation that has the technology to exploit such deposits. Future generations may improve on the technology and make it safer but the fundamental capability, the breakthroughs that make it possible have already happened. Future generations on the other hand will have their own breakthroughs in terms of new forms of power and new discoveries of fuels. They are then much less likely to need these resources than we do now.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe49f291c49183f66814de301f82fb2c",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region There is a growing demand for mineral resources\n\nImproving the lives of its citizens is one of the most important roles of the state. And in terms of improving lives economic growth is usually considered the most important economic goal. [1] And in order to grow cheap fuel is needed. Nuclear energy is still precarious, and expensive, and renewable technologies cannot come close to meeting the existing needs of the west, let alone those of Russia, China, Brazil, India and the rest.\n\nWe are confronted with a stark reality – either use new sources of oil and gas while investing in replacement technologies or see a collapse in standards of living and life expectancy around the world.\n\nThere is much to be said for less carbon-based economies but we don’t have one yet. Until that option is available, the lights need to be kept on. The area north of the Arctic Circle is thought to contain as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered reserves. [2]\n\nThere are costs to exploiting those reserves – some of them environmental – but they pale into insignificance compared with the collapse of the global economy that would result from the projected increases in global oil and gas costs.\n\n[1] ‘53% Say Economic Growth More Important Than Economic Fairness’, Rasmussen Reports, 21 January 2013, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2013/53_say_economic_growth_more_important_than_economic_fairness\n\n[2] Nakhle, Carole and Shamsutdinova, Inga. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources: Evaluating Investment Opportunities. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, vol.10 issue 2, February 2012, http://www.academia.edu/1461205/Arctic_Oil_and_Gas_Resources_Evaluating_Investment_Opportunities\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fd48494e2e9ad727c33e3f7d614219",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region Relieving areas of conflict such as the Middle East\n\nCurrently the main supplies of oil and gas are from the Middle East with more coming from Africa and in the western hemisphere from Venezuela. These oil producers include many unstable regimes; many of them engaged in appalling human rights abuses against their own citizens. This is because regimes with such natural resources buy off their people meaning there is little accountability. [1] In addition to the obvious ethical issues that are created by continuing to fund brutal regimes that happen to be sitting on billions of barrels of crude, it’s also economically risky to be so much in the pocket of such regimes.\n\nSecuring energy security has long been an ambition for much of the West. The Carter Doctrine of 1980 “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” was a direct response to the oil shocks of the previous decade. [2] In Canada, the USDA and the Nordic states, the possibility of secure energy is made a reality by the Arctic.\n\nBy removing the world’s dependency on regimes such as Saudi Arabia, there is much greater room for manoeuvre when it comes to challenging those regimes records. It would also allow the west in particular to tie themselves to the interests of the peoples of the Middle East rather than to those of their rulers.\n\n[1] Chatelus, Michel, and Scehmeil, Yves, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262\n\n[2] Bacevich, Andrew J., ‘The Carter Doctrine at 30’, World Affairs, 1 April 2010, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/andrew-j-bacevich/carter-doctrine-30\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07d6969d04fce9de2a66a89a418e4be1",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem\n\nMineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3]\n\nThe Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6]\n\nThe second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case.\n\nAt the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill.\n\n[1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/18/is-norman-baker-mp-serious-about-saving-the-environment/\n\n[2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/oil-exploration-under-arctic-ice-could-cause-uncontrollable-natural-disaster-2349788.html\n\n[3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/22/oil-spill-arctic-analysis\n\n[4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648, http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/dec03/peters121803.html\n\n[5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes & Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/microbes/index-eng.html\n\n[6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707 http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/notice/75fr3706.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181e75383a4e26222eb0713dc88cda39",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition\n\nThe opening up of the arctic Ocean through climate change also opens up territorial claims as where there are resources at stake states are keen to make a claim so as to exploit them. For example in 2008 Russia’s then President Medvedev stated “Our first and fundamental task is to turn the Arctic into a resource base for Russia in the 21st century.” [1] Such competition for resources can lead to conflict as is increasingly being shown in the East and South China Seas.\n\nThe Antarctic Treaty however freezes these territorial claims, as would our proposed treaty. It also bans military activity so preventing any completion from getting out of hand. [2] The proposal would also ban the exploitation of the Arctic’s resources so reducing the cause of any conflict.\n\n[1] Keating, Joshua, ‘Medvedev makes a play for Arctic riches’, Passport Foreign Policy, 17 September 2008, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/09/17/medvedev_makes_a_play_for_arctic_riches\n\n[2] ‘The Antarctic Treaty’, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011, http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1dc817856f31701bbca22e38e3d4c99",
"text": "climate energy pollution house would cease exploitation arctic region The Arctic should be saved for future generations\n\nAs we are using the resources of so much of the planet we should think about our legacy to future generations and leave the resources of the arctic to future generations. There are several reasons why we should do so.\n\nFirst of all drilling in the arctic means drilling in some of the harshest conditions on earth; with many of the projects being set up it means drilling in deep areas of the ocean that were inaccessible only a couple of decades ago. It also means drilling in freezing conditions while being potentially vulnerable to icebergs. Disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico have shown that oil companies are not prepared for oil disasters in deep water and repair would be more difficult a long way from civilization. [1]\n\nWhile the technology for this does not yet exist in future it probably will. It makes sense that we should leave such hard to reach resources until it is possible to extract it easily and safely. In the mean time we should be focusing our efforts on easier to reach resources and on developing alternatives. Such a policy will be beneficial to future generations both through making a greener economy and by leaving an emergency reserve of fossil fuel that can be used if necessary.\n\n[1] Lawless, Jill, ‘Tony Hayward: BP Was Unprepared For Gulf Oil Spill, 'We Were Making It Up Day To Day'’, HuffPost, 9 November 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/tony-hayward-bp-was-unpre_n_780814.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a788c7523c1eade525024f56aa711724
|
Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws
The great appeal of 3D printers is that they make consuming more efficient than normal methods: however, normal methods are inefficient in part because they undergo important checks and balances. Without proper regulations, standards are quickly dropped to save money and the health of thousands of consumers is put at risk. Such is the case in China, where consumer protection regulations are inefficient.7 Through 3D printing this becomes a global problem. Any company, real or fake, can sell products online without them having been approved. This means that people may buy dangerous products from unidentifiable, and thus legally unaccountable, companies. Shifting the burden of ensuring safety standards away from companies and onto consumers, who have significantly less information, is a threat to consumers’ health and safety.
[7] “China again heads EU’s dangerous products list”, EUbusiness. 16 April 2010. http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/china-consumer.454
|
[
{
"docid": "4e8423f71f03550995294590dcc4f529",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d If you purchase a poor quality product, you are the one to blame: this is already the case now if one chooses to buy a cheaper product from a less reliable source. Under a 3D printer market you are still likely to be purchasing most of your products from reliable brands with an incentive to keep producing quality products as they want you to return and buy more of their products. If you choose not to, you are aware of the risk you take, and can easily inform yourself of the risks on peer review websites and forums before making your choice.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "08162481d4c85619941312eeee25c2d2",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d This harm, realistically, is minimal. Those who want to buy guns would still buy them illegally without 3D printers. Guns can be cheap in the black market since they can be mass produced, and to print a gun one first has to purchase a printer, the materials and often also the blueprints. This is similarly the case for other illegal substances. The risk that things can be used for harmful purposes is not a sufficient reason, because those who want to harm themselves or others have the means to do so already. That is why the Madrid bombers were able to develop their own bombs from the internet before 3D printers had been developed: where there is a will, there will always be a way, and it is the will and not the way that it is ever useful to tackle.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd61a85a011ccceaf4bb33b485f8a174",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d For the people for whom the illegality of piracy is not a deterrent, the illegality of owning a domestic 3D printer will not be an obstacle either. Banning 3D printers may only result in large scale 3D printer manufacturing piracy.\n\nUnder this model, on the other hand, even if there is a slight infringement on intellectual property, a tax can be imposed on the private ownership on 3D printers that is used for rewarding innovation.15\n\n[15] See “This house would abolish intellectual property rights”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law/house-would-abolish-intellectual-property-rights\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fad3e05314f3359b9a40cda95396371",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world.\n\nEven in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12.\n\n[10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012. www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones\n\n[11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14149615\n\n[12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011. http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr10(1)11/5.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9b66a8027e8e9d1d698fe8998a1d5e4",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32d8dd8f7ce570579db03ad0219c487a",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d There is still a need for expertise: although they make manufacturing easier, 3D printers require knowledge that most people do not have. Most people will still be unable to create most products from scratch (and it may be dangerous to try). Individuals will therefore still have to rely on companies for their everyday needs. It is also untrue that they will never have to leave their home, since they will also need to purchase and transport printing materials.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4f9ff792d0eec54e11bdb8040a752a4",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d A post-scarcity society is unrealistic. 3D printers still come with large costs, in terms of machinery, materials and blueprints. Those that can afford the more complex printers and the higher quality materials will benefit much more than others. While these costs exist, and there is no near future in which they do not, scarcity will continue to be a problem. This is especially the case since the need for expertise remains. The vast majority of products of reasonable quality will still be produced by corporations with a profit incentive, and available only to those who can afford them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f190a35b087bc8edb223cc477c935ce",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d The difference is minimal between only companies having 3D printers and extending them to households. Printer owners would, for example, still have to purchase and transport printing materials. Many printers still involve large levels of waste19, and these are probably the lower quality printers that individual consumers are more likely to afford. Furthermore, household printing can actually harm the environment by provoking people to consume more than they would if price and convenience were deterrents. Industrial printing on its own can make a significant difference in terms of eco-friendly production: this should not be compromised by dropping all limits on production.\n\n[19] Faludi, Jeremy. “Is 3D printing an environmental win?”, GreenBiz. 19 July 2013. http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/07/19/3d-printing-environmental-win\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a66398c5ef80d8d600ab01b9dbc3007",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Household 3D printers will, in practice, hamper innovation both from companies and individuals. Firstly, individuals will still be faced with the large barrier to entry of lacking sufficient expertise to produce much of what they want. Any “flow of ideas” that may arise will only be composed of low-quality designs. Secondly, individuals will have less incentive to innovate when the market is out of control and free designs are floating all over the internet. Any attempt at differentiation is impossible.\n\nThirdly, and more importantly, the problems with copyright law once 3D printers are domestic will deter both companies and individuals from innovating. Revolutionary products require effort and knowledge to design: they will not be created without a profit incentive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4f76b92c6464210f6d7aacc506b5f9",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d The restrictions on what the state can ban are only valid inasmuch as they protect fundamental right. The supposed right to 3D printers is not fundamental, but is derived from a right to own good things, if they are available. If the state can provide an alternative that yields similar benefits it does not actually infringe any fundamental right by banning their domestic use. For example, industrial 3D printed manufacturing also provides cheap and innovative products. On the other hand, the potential harms of domestic printers are exponential, and we do not have a right to anything that causes harm to society. The state therefore has a mandate to ban 3D printers in households.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eb3ac053756555ec376becb38fbce28",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products\n\nAs the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5\n\nThis is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6.\n\nSimilarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety.\n\n[5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/\n\n[6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006. http://www.spiegel.de/international/al-qaida-s-online-university-jihad-101-for-would-be-terrorists-a-432133.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cec9639aaa6a0c60de9c977ec475e526",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Solid piracy will become as problematic as virtual piracy\n\nIntellectual property law is split into copyright, design protection, patents, and trademarks. All areas can be easily infringed by 3D printing.13 There is no meaningful way of sustaining these laws against individuals who choose to use 3D printers to benefit from the hard work of others. Much in the same way one can steal music online, blueprints for products can be decoded or stolen and subsequently reproduced at almost no expense. It may be impossible to determine where this has been done.14 This is unjust in itself, but it also creates a large deterrent from innovating by removing the profit incentive. Corporations and individuals will be pushed away from creating high quality innovative products if they know their blueprints can be pirated and spread online for free or for less than they themselves charge, making their effort in creating them worthless.\n\n[13] Gehl, Mary. “The Implications of 3D Printing”, Technology, Koinonia House. September 2012. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2012/1078/\n\n[14] Lawrence, Jon. “3D Printing: legal and regulatory issues”, Economic Frontiers Australia. 8 August 2013. https://www.efa.org.au/2013/08/08/3d-printing-issues/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aadbd30bb69946cf494dacf420d7fe93",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d 3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism\n\nWhile 3D printing may revolutionise professional manufacturing and lead to less waste, in the household it promotes mindless consumerism. By producing anything desired cheaply and more accessibly, without even having to leave your house, they encourage people consume much more than they otherwise would. This happens because individual consumers tend not to be concerned about the sustainability implications of every purchase: they will do so even less when 3D printers allow instant gratification.\n\nOn one hand, it can make people more dependent on material possessions, which makes it harder for them to attain more sustainable forms of happiness. Additionally, this eventually leads to more waste and overproduction, reversing all the potential benefits of industrial 3D printing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "323c3d8bcd639c8b0ae98abb3358f208",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies\n\nAll nations to develop economically depend on the importation of capital. In most cases, this takes the shape of labour-intense manufacturing. In fact, scarcely any countries have developed without transitioning through having a large manufacturing sector.8 It takes time for these countries to develop the capital and infrastructure to enter higher barrier to entry markets, such as the service sector. Transitioning without of manufacturing is therefore not an option for the majority of developing nations, and the exceptions that have succeeded in creating economic growth without large scale manufacturing, such as India and Sri Lanka, relied on spectacular luck.9 As a result, many developing nations depend on exporting cheap products to the developed world, where consumption is the highest.\n\nIf demand for the goods they produce is satisfied in the developed world, such countries will be unable to export. Because of the labour intensiveness of the manufacturing this will affect a large number of people. Short term drops in growth are particularly harmful in the developing world, where social security is too underdeveloped to cushion their effect. People who work long hours for minimal wages do so because unemployment is not an option. Were these factories to have to close suddenly, the social consequences would be devastating.\n\n3D printers provoke this to happen by satisfying all demand for cheap products. When individuals in Western liberal democracies can get access to cheaper products from their own home, developing nations will be unable to compete, and their exports fall substantially. 3D printers should remain at the industry level, where companies are more likely to rationally prefer importing cheap products over the extra costs of using 3D printers, such as electricity, and are likely to continue trade with the Third World.\n\n[8] “Breaking In and Moving Up: New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle Income Countries”, Industrial Development Report, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2009. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/IDR/2009/IDR_2009_print.PDF\n\n[9] “The Service Elevator”, The Economist. 19 May 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18712351\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58af23aed5a6eb8061b51854845e00f9",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d The state should refrain from imposing bans\n\nIn Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others.\n\nTherefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad51972e0c1307aa94a451895c2c6900",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation\n\nRight now, there are large barriers to entry for individuals and small companies trying to enter any market. Economies of scale make it hard for them to compete with large manufacturers, and they are additionally bound to slow and inefficient quality regulations. This severely limits any kind of innovation. The collective possession of 3D printers would facilitate creation. Anybody could have an idea and implement it into a solid product, which is cheap to produce in your own home without economies of scale. There are already examples all over the world of people creating innovating prototypes and attracting investors16. 3D printing therefore means that anyone can set up in manufacturing without large start-up costs. This means that the flow of ideas in society and the discussion that accompanies it – such as people posting blueprints on blogs and forums and improving each other’s products – would develop infinitely faster than when it is limited to large manufacturers.17\n\n[16] Palermo, Elizabeth. “10 Amazing 3D-Printing Startups”, Business News Daily. 18 June 2013. http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4646-3d-printing-companies.html\n\n[17] Wainwright, Oliver. “Is DIY design more than a passing fad?”, Architecture and Design Blog, The Guardian. 24 July 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/jul/24/design-museum-diy-3d-printing\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aea0bfb07faa3c819681fcd5ee772fb6",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d 3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society\n\nIndustrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies.\n\n[20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013. http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/31/study-at-home-3-d-printing-could-save-consumers-thousands/\n\n[21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries. http://www.thingiverse.com/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e42711c7b2f1e173de5f6aa899d725de",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom\n\nIndividuals are the most fit to decide for themselves what they need and what they want to be happy. When corporations attempt to match demand they do so imperfectly because they have to cater to large numbers of people. Letting people create and customise whatever they want gives them, quite literally, an infinite selection to choose from. This maximises freedom for the consumer and leads to a better quality of life: most of your needs can be met exactly as you want them, without even having to leave your home.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49dfc93657f0805954892e3bf3d4e8c8",
"text": "pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming\n\nThe more is produced by 3D printing, the better: it makes consuming much more environmentally friendly. They involve less transportation costs, no large scale factories, and by involving additive manufacturing, they can use as little as only a tenth of the material that subtractive manufacturing would require.18 When households, and not only companies, have access to 3D printers, companies will no longer have to move products around the world, but can sell electronic blueprints instead. Furthermore, things are only actually produced after they have been purchased, reducing waste even more.\n\n[18] “Print me a Stradivarius”, The Economist. 10 February 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18114327\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c3b53016c82b277a546f9d5a6f43a82e
|
There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market
Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area.
Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.
|
[
{
"docid": "fbda6fc893f8a223d0c87c622254ea94",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power Nuclear power has, worldwide, received billions, if not trillions, of dollars of investment. By comparison the renewables industry has received tiny grants from central government and, despite a lack of funding and running forty years behind in terms of the attention of governments, it is holding its own with an expanding market share. As of the 8th of July 2011 the US was more reliant on renewable energy than nuclear [i] according to the Energy Information Administration.\n\nAll of this was accomplished despite massively disproportionate funding. According to the primary Congressional report on the subject:\n\n“Energy research and development (R&D) intended to advance technology played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post-war era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 33-year period from the Department of Energy’s inception at the beginning of fiscal Year (FY) 1978 through FY2010, federal spending for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 16% of the energy R&D total, compared with 14% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 63-year period from 1948 through 2010, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 9% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 50% for nuclear.” [ii] Put simply the renewables industry has been outspent but is still producing more energy in the world’s largest consumer.\n\n[i] “US Renewable Energy Production Now Greater Than Nuclear”. Future of Energy Blog. 8 July 2011.\n\n[ii] Fred Sissine. “Renewable Energy R&D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Energy Efficiency R&D”. Congressional Research Service. 26 January 2011.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b2c14cd7598e470e3241db9a8aa8c93",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power It is interesting to note that the only places where nuclear energy has provided a dominant share of the national energy market are France, Russia, Canada (specifically Ontario) and now, increasingly China. All of which have heavily centralised energy markets.\n\nIndeed the correlation between bureaucracy, the possession or desire for a nuclear arsenal and the use of overpriced nuclear energy appears to go beyond coincidence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebc5779898c81c753cbbc318252f9c52",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] .\n\nIt is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant.\n\nIt is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard.\n\n[i] http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a6705a46dadaaba8ad61574b7abfbb7",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power The nuclear industry around the world has always sought to improve the rights and protections of workers in uranium mines and to lessen the environmental impact of those mining activities [i] .\n\nCompared to the environmental impact of coal and oil withdrawal, uranium is relatively harmless.\n\nCompared to the space taken up by windfarms with their impact on the local environment and the devastation that can be caused by Hydroelectric, this is a low impact industry.\n\n[i] Press Release. “Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining”. World Nuclear Association. February 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f0e62d02a0baaec8a611bebf1883977",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power All societies inherit problems from previous generations this age has acquired a global population that has increased seven-fold in the course of two generations and has a desperate need for energy. Nuclear power fills that need and consistently works to ensure that its byproducts are rendered harmless.\n\nNo industry has put more work into ensuring that it does not leave a mess behind it – nor is any industry under more scrutiny on the subject.\n\nThe Nuclear Industry has routinely accepted its responsibility to future generations in a way that other sectors of the mainstream energy sector have refused to.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eba1d836f3cb1ed32ed9cd278a2d9118",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .\n\nOf course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.\n\nBy any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.\n\n[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d1198f12132f37a864f81ca0dd5dcbc",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements\n\nThe renewable sector is a rapidly changing market moving in between micro-renewables and massive offshore projects. It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field but it lacks stability both in terms of technology and investment.\n\nRealistically nuclear power is going to have to play an important role in bridging the gap – at the very least – on the road away from a carbon dependent economy [i] .\n\nThe technology and funding is simply not in place for any renewable technology to take up the hard lifting from oil and coal yet.\n\n[i] G Paschal Zachary. “The Case for Nuclear Power”. SFGate (San Fransisco Chronicle). 5 February 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e869950ec586a959e4639f902d606b8a",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power Nuclear power has a proven track record in France, Canada and Russia and an increasing role in new energy markets\n\nThere are already stable markets for nuclear power around the world with plants providing a consistent share of energy to the consumer. Although there are now renewable suppliers providing some share of total demand it is rare for them to have established relationships with either suppliers or major industrial consumers.\n\nThere are, however established models of how nuclear power can be blended into an integrated energy supply system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c171fcd31ef1122c4c810b474f121964",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power The nuclear industry is constantly judged on criteria that do not take its externalities into account\n\nNuclear puts great store on the fact that it is a ‘clean fuel’ however this assessment tends to ignore several factors in terms of social and other costs. Although much attention has been given to the possible harm of dealing with fuel rods at the end of their life, much less is given to the mining of Uranium in the first place. To take one of many examples, in 2006 the Navajo nation won a lengthy legal fight to prevent Uranium mining ever taking place on their land. Similar efforts by communities in Latin America have been less successful.\n\nThe industry bears none of the costs for the illnesses, poisoned rivers, fatalities and other costs of this process [i] .\n\n[i] Laurie Fosner. “Uranium Mining in the Navajo Nation”. Sprol. 20 June 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1f61489ff6e88c428587d6c6cdc2ef1",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future\n\nWere humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76774d5b22faa8202acafa6255538ef5",
"text": "climate energy house would invest renewable technologies rather nuclear power The nuclear industry has constantly required government bailouts and has never been commercially viable in an open market\n\nThe nuclear industry is always keen to point out how cheap it is to produce a therm of energy through splitting an atom. However, these figures tend to leave out a few details such as the decade of taxpayer’s dollars it takes to build a nuclear plant in the first place or the 20,000 years it takes to reprocess the fuel rods afterwards.\n\nIn every nation with a civil nuclear industry, the tax payer has been paying through the nose to keep it running. Even with all of this support, the price of nuclear industry is still not competitive. In the US alone the bill is running at over $150m in hard cash [i] , when British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) had to start facing up to the costs of reprocessing its spent fuel in 2001, the British government was required to underwrite the cost of 2.1 billion pounds in that year with an anticipation of ten times that during the forthcoming years. The alternative would have been bankruptcy for the entire industry [ii] .\n\n[i] Mark Hertsgaard. \"The True Costs of Nuclear Power\". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006\n\n[ii] Rob Edwards. “Taxpayer bailout bankrupt nuclear plants; leaked BNFL report”. Sunday Herald. 14 July 2002.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8bced0cc1dcd1b906411095bc35b70ec
|
Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation
The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1]
[1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.
|
[
{
"docid": "a067131ae8ca877f34a243845e1eddd4",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002\n\n[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "484002d5f317919c551054e9259ffccb",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective.\n\n[1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "956a6053ee710ab430437344134f10d8",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal.\n\n[1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.\n\n[2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96a796c97c6404ef3345f69ba8513117",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1]\n\n[1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2737a7d4869666845d2ddcb2a2d72ba1",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5402bc96fd0c93385f735f6709dad78f",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams can mitigate the ecological impact. Hydroelectric dams can take steps to mitigate their environmental impact. For example, for salmon, dams these days have ‘fish ladders’, allowing them to reach their spawning grounds. For these and other sustainability measures, the International Hydropower Association developed several guidelines and protocols to minimize ecological impact as far as possible. [1]\n\n[1] International Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caa3f7c7caa210c7a1d48e79526cbdd2",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy\n\nIn 2010, about 1.4 billion people had no access to electricity. [1] Hydropower provides a source of energy that is cheaper even than conventional coal. [2] Large dams can last for over a hundred years [3] and are easy to switch on and off according to demand, making them very cost-effective. Given that having no access to electricity makes work and study nearly impossible, alleviating global poverty by giving access to electricity is an important step to take.\n\n[1] IEA, Access to Electricity, 2010\n\n[2] Wikipedia. Cost of electricity by source.\n\n[3] WWF, Dam Right!, 2003\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e28adbfe098487f2266e2ead3e4d454b",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions\n\nHydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively.\n\n[1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010\n\n[2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d829087f0241b5496a3023461957151a",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems\n\nLarge dams wreak havoc with the environment: they destroy habitats and ecosystems both further upstream and downstream. They prevent salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. The water going through them is often warmer and devoid of nutrients, depriving downstream riverine wildlife of their natural habitat. A shocking example is China’s Three Gorges Dam, which Scientific American called ‘an environmental disaster’. [1]\n\n[1] Scientific American, ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: An environmental disaster?’ 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba7f0d54a3a046a7a3fb6a3858a7d169",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions\n\nHydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1]\n\n[1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "548be2e3cfa19dceb3b06ac201cc9382",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams destroy communities\n\nWhat applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people, [1] involved severe human rights abuses [2] and has had dire social consequences. [3]\n\n[1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009\n\n[2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003\n\n[3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4a21274be724d5b516ea8ca8655ef77b
|
Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems
Large dams wreak havoc with the environment: they destroy habitats and ecosystems both further upstream and downstream. They prevent salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. The water going through them is often warmer and devoid of nutrients, depriving downstream riverine wildlife of their natural habitat. A shocking example is China’s Three Gorges Dam, which Scientific American called ‘an environmental disaster’. [1]
[1] Scientific American, ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: An environmental disaster?’ 2008
|
[
{
"docid": "5402bc96fd0c93385f735f6709dad78f",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams can mitigate the ecological impact. Hydroelectric dams can take steps to mitigate their environmental impact. For example, for salmon, dams these days have ‘fish ladders’, allowing them to reach their spawning grounds. For these and other sustainability measures, the International Hydropower Association developed several guidelines and protocols to minimize ecological impact as far as possible. [1]\n\n[1] International Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "96a796c97c6404ef3345f69ba8513117",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1]\n\n[1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2737a7d4869666845d2ddcb2a2d72ba1",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "484002d5f317919c551054e9259ffccb",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective.\n\n[1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a067131ae8ca877f34a243845e1eddd4",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002\n\n[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "956a6053ee710ab430437344134f10d8",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal.\n\n[1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.\n\n[2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba7f0d54a3a046a7a3fb6a3858a7d169",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions\n\nHydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1]\n\n[1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "548be2e3cfa19dceb3b06ac201cc9382",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams destroy communities\n\nWhat applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people, [1] involved severe human rights abuses [2] and has had dire social consequences. [3]\n\n[1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009\n\n[2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003\n\n[3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caa3f7c7caa210c7a1d48e79526cbdd2",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy\n\nIn 2010, about 1.4 billion people had no access to electricity. [1] Hydropower provides a source of energy that is cheaper even than conventional coal. [2] Large dams can last for over a hundred years [3] and are easy to switch on and off according to demand, making them very cost-effective. Given that having no access to electricity makes work and study nearly impossible, alleviating global poverty by giving access to electricity is an important step to take.\n\n[1] IEA, Access to Electricity, 2010\n\n[2] Wikipedia. Cost of electricity by source.\n\n[3] WWF, Dam Right!, 2003\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af413cf1b50d4c9c4615f8de2747d46c",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation\n\nThe large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1]\n\n[1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e28adbfe098487f2266e2ead3e4d454b",
"text": "climate environment general water house would build hydroelectric dams Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions\n\nHydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively.\n\n[1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010\n\n[2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5ebea7957253224767368b1cbf0be23b
|
Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone
Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard. [1]
So we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions.
Everyone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating.
[1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313458/Halal-Britain-Famous-institutions-routinely-serve-public-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html
|
[
{
"docid": "e94bb397f74896543ece515683374047",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights.\n\nConsumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "502afe6d1a1e40e8924a0cc6d4f5043c",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first To worry about animal rights more than human rights is not sensible. When the two are compatible, this is a good thing, but in this case the ban would have the effect of forcing Jews and Muslims to choose between keeping their religion and eating meat. This is a more important concern than animal welfare: although eating meat is not an essential part of life, it is not reasonable to deny it to someone.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cc2876cabf4d3260aacdf9c9bf9dfeb",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Doing something democratically doesn’t make it right or fair. No matter how much you care about animal rights, you have no right to force other people to do the same. The fact that you disagree with them doesn’t make them wrong.\n\nWe generally accept that the state may control what people do in order to protect society. This proposed ban goes beyond that remit, as religious slaughter of animals does not cause harm to other people. That being the case, it is unjust to stop them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e237c636e2e3feec98d66cbe4070543d",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun.\n\nDespite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ac92235bb06e6f17a5a749cb7f9ac30",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Although we want to protect freedom of religion, it is not as fundamental as other rights. When two rights clash, we have to decide which should take precedence – for example, your freedom of action is limited by my right not to be punched in the face. Further, we will normally resolve clashes so as to first stop physical harm, followed by emotional or other harm. Freedom of religion, though important, comes further down the list.\n\nIn this case, the more “fundamental” of the rights in play is the right of the animal to be protected from unnecessary pain. It is more closely linked to reducing suffering, which an appropriate goal for society. So in this particular case, we should put the animals first.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c6b0f94f537bb3547ef8531b11f5732",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.\n\nIt is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a78b84d110cec17273e3862159fc314",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Stunning is only unreliable when done badly. All of the objections listed represent cases where best practice was not being followed. It is important to implement stunning properly, but there are plenty of stunning methods which, when carried out properly and carefully, have been shown to be fully effective.\n\nReligious slaughterhouses are not immune to failures either, with the most common reported problem being an insufficiently sharp knife. The same report cited by opposition condemns the religious slaughter of animals and says “when shechita is performed on chickens in Britain, only about half the birds have both their carotid arteries completely severed by the cut” allowing brain activity to continue for up to 349 seconds. [1] Requiring stunning will improve the base line of welfare we are working towards, and we can then start to worry about ensuring compliance\n\n[1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/a/animal_welfare_problems_in_uk_slaughterhouses_2001.pdf , p.19, 21\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7837216c20efc71858517159f117182",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Without accepting the premise that the two types of killing cause equal pain and it is only if the slaughter is done badly that there is a problem the slaughter is more likely to be done badly with religious slaughter. Training people to do religious slaughter well is harder than training them to do other kinds of slaughter. In particular, the latter is more mechanized, so as long as the equipment is properly maintained many problems can be avoided. Religious slaughter is much more prone to human error.\n\nIt will be much easier to teach people best practice and improve animal welfare if we require them to use the simpler methods, where less training is required. This is a more efficient way of improving animal welfare than studying a myriad of different types of knife etc.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7903a5465450e9294de8d1a4e48c8d56",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The animal welfare movement can tackle whichever problems it wants to. It is absurd for opponents of the movement to try and tell us what our agenda must be, or that we shouldn’t regard this as significant. Moreover, if we kept asking, “why are we spending our time on this,” we would never get anything done at all. It makes sense to pick achievable targets, and a ban on religious slaughter is achievable partly because of the relatively limited nature of the problem.\n\nWe can exploit the momentum this gives our movement to make further progress on other issues.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc0053c5c17547ca1607d1ec587e0698",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first We should treat animals well\n\nIt is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty.\n\nInflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare.\n\nKilling animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods.\n\n[1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/why-animal-rights/\n\n[2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/hunting-and-the-law\n\n[3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979, http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references/slaughter/jour137_en.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "325d26fab33a6a3de2f85f813807a652",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Animal welfare is a legitimate political aim\n\nIt is important for animal rights to be represented in political discourse. The animal rights movement has many supporters. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has 3 million members worldwide. [1] In the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) are both in the 15 wealthiest charities. [2]\n\nThe point of democracy is that people decide collectively how they want their state to run. In one poll in the UK, 45% of people backed a ban on shechita. [3] Democracy requires that we take this seriously, and if the animal rights movement wins the debate then we should implement a ban.\n\n[1] ‘Membership Services’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, accessed 30 May 2013, http://www.peta.org/donate/membership-services/\n\n[2] Rogers, Simon, ‘Britain's top 1,000 charities ranked by donations. Who raises the most money?’, guardian.co.uk, 24 April 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/24/top-1000-charities-donations-britain\n\n[3] Rocker, Simon, ‘Forty five per cent of Britons ready to ban Shechita’, TheJC.com, 27 March 2013, http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/103895/forty-five-cent-britons-ready-ban-shechita\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb3dbe6e988aa7b61b387f390b850081",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Slaughter without stunning is painful for the animal\n\nSlaughter without stunning is painful for the animal. All slaughter methods which do not involve stunning work by bleeding the animal so that it suffers brain-death. This is normally done by cutting the neck. Depending on the species of animal, it can survive for anything between 20 seconds and 2 minutes after this.\n\nAlthough animals can’t tell us if they are in pain, the best metrics we have – brain activity, eye movement and making sounds – indicate that the animals are in pain during this period. [1] Rendering the animal unconscious stops it feeling pain immediately.\n\nWhen we have two methods of killing the animal available, it is inhumane to use the more painful one. It follows that we should require stunning.\n\n[1] Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, ‘Slaughter of animals without prior stunning’, FVE Position Paper, FVE/02/104, 2002, http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89176979f028f22cc8b3c05798a4837b",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The problem is not a significant one\n\nThe animal welfare movement should be tackling more important things. In the UK, only about 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and 4% of poultry are slaughtered without stunning. [1] Farming and transporting causes the vast majority of the pain in the life of a given animal before it ever arrives at the slaughterhouse. This is a much more important issue, as it affects every animal, not just the small proportion slaughtered without stunning.\n\nFrom the slaughter to the animal actually dying is normally within 20 seconds, and can be as low as 2 seconds, depending on the species of animal. [2] The distress caused by this in not significant in the grand scheme of things. Given that the animal is being slaughtered, some discomfort is inevitable, but religious slaughter – even if it is more painful than slaughter with stunning – can hardly be described as prolonged or systematic cruelty.\n\n[1] Rhodes, Andrew, ‘Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain’, Food Standards Agency, 22 May 2012, http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa120508.pdf\n\n[2] Grandin, Temple, ‘Welfare During Slaughter without stunning (Kosher or Halal) differences between Sheep and Cattle’, Grandin.com, September 2012, http://www.grandin.com/ritual/welfare.diffs.sheep.cattle.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b31db14a86c3365d4407e987f54fdeb",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first When done properly, religious slaughter is as good as any other\n\nMuch of the research which suggests that religious slaughter causes pain is flawed. To show that the method is necessarily painful, you would have to watch a trained person with perfect equipment. However, many studies into slaughter have observed religious slaughter done in a way which doesn’t meet the religious requirements, and so doesn’t tell us anything about the real world. For example, one study of shechita done in New Zealand used a knife which was half the length required by Jewish law, making it more likely to tear the wound and cause pain. [1] These are not trivial details – they materially affect the humaneness of the process.\n\nAs well as this, campaigners often conflate different types of slaughter in ways that are not scientifically accurate. Different animals – horses, cattle, sheep, poultry, rabbits etc. – and even different breeds of animals react differently to both the slaughter and the stunning. Before we can assess the applicability of a study we need to know what kind of animal was being used, the length and sharpness of the knife, the precise location of the cut and other details.\n\nThe available evidence only shows the unsurprising result that religious slaughter causes pain if done badly, just like any other kind of slaughter. It is sensible to argue for better regulation, but a ban is not supportable.\n\n[1] Regenstein, Joe M., ‘Expert Opinion on Considerations When Evaluating All Types of Slaughter:\n\nMechanical, Electrical, Gas and Religious Slaughter’, Cornell University, 23 May 2011, http://www.kosjerslachten.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Preliminary-Report-Regenstein-2305111.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e643a72c8099cd954838102e7a9f7b",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable\n\nBanning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage.\n\nAppearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands.\n\nThis ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people.\n\n[1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13947163\n\n[2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922026\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b41b7d3ae1eb3b0b32993d3414857a8",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The rights of humans are more important than the rights of animals\n\nAnimal rights are not generally accepted as universal rights in the same way as human rights are. If we want to have a shared society, it is necessary to grant each other certain rights, such as respecting personal autonomy and property. Because we reciprocate, we are able to work as a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. There are different philosophical theories as to the source of these rights, but the important thing is what they allow us to achieve. It is generally accepted that the right to a religion is one of these rights, as for many people religion is fundamental to their identity – most estimates for the number of religious people in the world are over 80%. [1] In comparison, animal rights are in no way critical to society.\n\nIn our debate, freedom of religion is clashing with causing pain to animals. The former, being a human right, should take precedence over the latter, an animal right. Although we would not give blanket consent to all religious practices, this particular practice is one which there is no reason for banning.\n\n[1] ‘Religions’, The World Factbook, 2010 est., https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99b201a5d5515769700117f2386f1256",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Most stunning methods are not reliable\n\nThe stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times).\n\nPoultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely. [1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods.\n\nReligious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good.\n\n[1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/a/animal_welfare_problems_in_uk_slaughterhouses_2001.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
91ea7a3ed3e7a2f219bf6369acaad636
|
Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable
Banning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage.
Appearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands.
This ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people.
[1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13947163
[2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922026
|
[
{
"docid": "0c6b0f94f537bb3547ef8531b11f5732",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.\n\nIt is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ac92235bb06e6f17a5a749cb7f9ac30",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Although we want to protect freedom of religion, it is not as fundamental as other rights. When two rights clash, we have to decide which should take precedence – for example, your freedom of action is limited by my right not to be punched in the face. Further, we will normally resolve clashes so as to first stop physical harm, followed by emotional or other harm. Freedom of religion, though important, comes further down the list.\n\nIn this case, the more “fundamental” of the rights in play is the right of the animal to be protected from unnecessary pain. It is more closely linked to reducing suffering, which an appropriate goal for society. So in this particular case, we should put the animals first.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a78b84d110cec17273e3862159fc314",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Stunning is only unreliable when done badly. All of the objections listed represent cases where best practice was not being followed. It is important to implement stunning properly, but there are plenty of stunning methods which, when carried out properly and carefully, have been shown to be fully effective.\n\nReligious slaughterhouses are not immune to failures either, with the most common reported problem being an insufficiently sharp knife. The same report cited by opposition condemns the religious slaughter of animals and says “when shechita is performed on chickens in Britain, only about half the birds have both their carotid arteries completely severed by the cut” allowing brain activity to continue for up to 349 seconds. [1] Requiring stunning will improve the base line of welfare we are working towards, and we can then start to worry about ensuring compliance\n\n[1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/a/animal_welfare_problems_in_uk_slaughterhouses_2001.pdf , p.19, 21\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7837216c20efc71858517159f117182",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Without accepting the premise that the two types of killing cause equal pain and it is only if the slaughter is done badly that there is a problem the slaughter is more likely to be done badly with religious slaughter. Training people to do religious slaughter well is harder than training them to do other kinds of slaughter. In particular, the latter is more mechanized, so as long as the equipment is properly maintained many problems can be avoided. Religious slaughter is much more prone to human error.\n\nIt will be much easier to teach people best practice and improve animal welfare if we require them to use the simpler methods, where less training is required. This is a more efficient way of improving animal welfare than studying a myriad of different types of knife etc.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7903a5465450e9294de8d1a4e48c8d56",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The animal welfare movement can tackle whichever problems it wants to. It is absurd for opponents of the movement to try and tell us what our agenda must be, or that we shouldn’t regard this as significant. Moreover, if we kept asking, “why are we spending our time on this,” we would never get anything done at all. It makes sense to pick achievable targets, and a ban on religious slaughter is achievable partly because of the relatively limited nature of the problem.\n\nWe can exploit the momentum this gives our movement to make further progress on other issues.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "502afe6d1a1e40e8924a0cc6d4f5043c",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first To worry about animal rights more than human rights is not sensible. When the two are compatible, this is a good thing, but in this case the ban would have the effect of forcing Jews and Muslims to choose between keeping their religion and eating meat. This is a more important concern than animal welfare: although eating meat is not an essential part of life, it is not reasonable to deny it to someone.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e94bb397f74896543ece515683374047",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights.\n\nConsumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cc2876cabf4d3260aacdf9c9bf9dfeb",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Doing something democratically doesn’t make it right or fair. No matter how much you care about animal rights, you have no right to force other people to do the same. The fact that you disagree with them doesn’t make them wrong.\n\nWe generally accept that the state may control what people do in order to protect society. This proposed ban goes beyond that remit, as religious slaughter of animals does not cause harm to other people. That being the case, it is unjust to stop them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e237c636e2e3feec98d66cbe4070543d",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun.\n\nDespite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89176979f028f22cc8b3c05798a4837b",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The problem is not a significant one\n\nThe animal welfare movement should be tackling more important things. In the UK, only about 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and 4% of poultry are slaughtered without stunning. [1] Farming and transporting causes the vast majority of the pain in the life of a given animal before it ever arrives at the slaughterhouse. This is a much more important issue, as it affects every animal, not just the small proportion slaughtered without stunning.\n\nFrom the slaughter to the animal actually dying is normally within 20 seconds, and can be as low as 2 seconds, depending on the species of animal. [2] The distress caused by this in not significant in the grand scheme of things. Given that the animal is being slaughtered, some discomfort is inevitable, but religious slaughter – even if it is more painful than slaughter with stunning – can hardly be described as prolonged or systematic cruelty.\n\n[1] Rhodes, Andrew, ‘Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain’, Food Standards Agency, 22 May 2012, http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa120508.pdf\n\n[2] Grandin, Temple, ‘Welfare During Slaughter without stunning (Kosher or Halal) differences between Sheep and Cattle’, Grandin.com, September 2012, http://www.grandin.com/ritual/welfare.diffs.sheep.cattle.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b31db14a86c3365d4407e987f54fdeb",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first When done properly, religious slaughter is as good as any other\n\nMuch of the research which suggests that religious slaughter causes pain is flawed. To show that the method is necessarily painful, you would have to watch a trained person with perfect equipment. However, many studies into slaughter have observed religious slaughter done in a way which doesn’t meet the religious requirements, and so doesn’t tell us anything about the real world. For example, one study of shechita done in New Zealand used a knife which was half the length required by Jewish law, making it more likely to tear the wound and cause pain. [1] These are not trivial details – they materially affect the humaneness of the process.\n\nAs well as this, campaigners often conflate different types of slaughter in ways that are not scientifically accurate. Different animals – horses, cattle, sheep, poultry, rabbits etc. – and even different breeds of animals react differently to both the slaughter and the stunning. Before we can assess the applicability of a study we need to know what kind of animal was being used, the length and sharpness of the knife, the precise location of the cut and other details.\n\nThe available evidence only shows the unsurprising result that religious slaughter causes pain if done badly, just like any other kind of slaughter. It is sensible to argue for better regulation, but a ban is not supportable.\n\n[1] Regenstein, Joe M., ‘Expert Opinion on Considerations When Evaluating All Types of Slaughter:\n\nMechanical, Electrical, Gas and Religious Slaughter’, Cornell University, 23 May 2011, http://www.kosjerslachten.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Preliminary-Report-Regenstein-2305111.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b41b7d3ae1eb3b0b32993d3414857a8",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first The rights of humans are more important than the rights of animals\n\nAnimal rights are not generally accepted as universal rights in the same way as human rights are. If we want to have a shared society, it is necessary to grant each other certain rights, such as respecting personal autonomy and property. Because we reciprocate, we are able to work as a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. There are different philosophical theories as to the source of these rights, but the important thing is what they allow us to achieve. It is generally accepted that the right to a religion is one of these rights, as for many people religion is fundamental to their identity – most estimates for the number of religious people in the world are over 80%. [1] In comparison, animal rights are in no way critical to society.\n\nIn our debate, freedom of religion is clashing with causing pain to animals. The former, being a human right, should take precedence over the latter, an animal right. Although we would not give blanket consent to all religious practices, this particular practice is one which there is no reason for banning.\n\n[1] ‘Religions’, The World Factbook, 2010 est., https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99b201a5d5515769700117f2386f1256",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Most stunning methods are not reliable\n\nThe stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times).\n\nPoultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely. [1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods.\n\nReligious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good.\n\n[1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/a/animal_welfare_problems_in_uk_slaughterhouses_2001.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc0053c5c17547ca1607d1ec587e0698",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first We should treat animals well\n\nIt is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty.\n\nInflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare.\n\nKilling animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods.\n\n[1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/why-animal-rights/\n\n[2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/hunting-and-the-law\n\n[3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979, http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references/slaughter/jour137_en.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "325d26fab33a6a3de2f85f813807a652",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Animal welfare is a legitimate political aim\n\nIt is important for animal rights to be represented in political discourse. The animal rights movement has many supporters. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has 3 million members worldwide. [1] In the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) are both in the 15 wealthiest charities. [2]\n\nThe point of democracy is that people decide collectively how they want their state to run. In one poll in the UK, 45% of people backed a ban on shechita. [3] Democracy requires that we take this seriously, and if the animal rights movement wins the debate then we should implement a ban.\n\n[1] ‘Membership Services’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, accessed 30 May 2013, http://www.peta.org/donate/membership-services/\n\n[2] Rogers, Simon, ‘Britain's top 1,000 charities ranked by donations. Who raises the most money?’, guardian.co.uk, 24 April 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/24/top-1000-charities-donations-britain\n\n[3] Rocker, Simon, ‘Forty five per cent of Britons ready to ban Shechita’, TheJC.com, 27 March 2013, http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/103895/forty-five-cent-britons-ready-ban-shechita\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb3dbe6e988aa7b61b387f390b850081",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Slaughter without stunning is painful for the animal\n\nSlaughter without stunning is painful for the animal. All slaughter methods which do not involve stunning work by bleeding the animal so that it suffers brain-death. This is normally done by cutting the neck. Depending on the species of animal, it can survive for anything between 20 seconds and 2 minutes after this.\n\nAlthough animals can’t tell us if they are in pain, the best metrics we have – brain activity, eye movement and making sounds – indicate that the animals are in pain during this period. [1] Rendering the animal unconscious stops it feeling pain immediately.\n\nWhen we have two methods of killing the animal available, it is inhumane to use the more painful one. It follows that we should require stunning.\n\n[1] Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, ‘Slaughter of animals without prior stunning’, FVE Position Paper, FVE/02/104, 2002, http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf30bcc0e1dbd1acabbf8684301ddacc",
"text": "animals house would ban slaughter animals which have not been stunned first Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone\n\nMeat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard. [1]\n\nSo we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions.\n\nEveryone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating.\n\n[1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313458/Halal-Britain-Famous-institutions-routinely-serve-public-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c79dc0a35a3040475c610d922c168c86
|
Nuclear energy in Europe is currently considered to be dangerous
In the response to Fukushima accident European Commission carried out a series of stress tests on nuclear power plants in the EU to minimise the risk of such an accident occurring in the EU. The results were disturbing. According to the report European power plants are not well prepared for an emergency situation. Some of the power plants would have less than hour to restore safety systems in case of electric blackout. [1] Currently more than 100,000 citizens live in proximity (30 km) of 111 reactors. Should anything go wrong, many lives would be endangered. The problems could be resolved by dramatic investments into the safety measures. However, these investments would require approximately €25 bn [2] . This is a sum indebted European Union cannot afford. Therefore shutdown and substitution of these hazardous plants would be a much better idea.
[1] European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (“stress tests”) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities’, Europa.eu, 4 October 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf
[2] Paterson, Tony, ‘Europe’s ‘dangerous’ nuclear plants need €25bn safety refit’, The Independent, 18 November 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europes-dangerous-nuclear-plants-need-25bn-safety-refit-8196457.html
|
[
{
"docid": "38138c4c16133fd96fe72186e392126b",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy The essence of the argument may be correct, however, the basis is not. The stress tests were to great extent based on unrealistic threats like strong earthquake (which are extremely rare – almost non-existent in Europe away from the Mediterranean) or crash of big airplane. In these cases truly, lives could be endangered, however, the possibility of these cases ever occurring is nearly zero. Even if some investments in safety measures were needed (like in case of the safety systems in case of blackout) implementation of those would be substantially lower than phasing out nuclear reactors and building a replacement capacity of equal capacity from renewable sources.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "60b3233b241ba88ef7a20629df4490bc",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy First of all, power plants operating on renewable resources are not as green as one might think. Hydroelectric and tidal power can harm water ecosystems, wind turbines can harm wildlife and solar plants need a large space to be built on and are only really efficient in deserts. Nuclear power stations are relatively green since they do not primary produce any “dirty gases.” The only problem is mining uranium and the nuclear waste, which is increasingly able to be recycled and potentially reused as fuel for more modern nuclear plants.\n\nFurthermore, gas stations are operating with non-renewable source of energy – natural gas. Therefore, when speaking about efficiency -nuclear power stations are generally more effective than gas power stations [1] [2] – it is better for environment to operate on few nuclear power stations rather than on many of gas power stations. Nuclear power stations are not flexible, but they can represent the base of needed energy, which does not fluctuate, and the rest of needed energy which varies in time may be supplied with power plants operating on renewable sources and few power plants operating on other non-renewable sources.\n\n[1] ‘Cooling power plants’, World Nuclear Association, September 2012, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Cooling-Power-Plants/\n\n[2] Kirk T. 2007 Physics IB Study Guide, Oxford University Press, p.68\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddeae2aab346e3cfb9d947137c1fdc8c",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy The main source, or fuel, for production of nuclear energy does not have to be uranium, thorium can be used. While the number of reactors may increase the consumption of uranium may well actually go down as the next generation of reactors will get more energy from the uranium they use. More specifically fourth generation reactors would reuse the uranium multiple times up to the point where they may be more than a hundred times more fuel efficient than current reactors. [1]\n\nFurthermore, uranium is not mined only in one specific country, but in variety of countries (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, United States). As we can see, these countries differ from each other in any way – political situation, regime, relationships with other countries etc. Therefore, even in the case of war with one or few countries from where uranium is obtained, the supply can be established from other sources, other countries. Therefore, there is a very little possibility of diplomatic pressure, since uranium can be obtained from variety of sources.\n\nTogether with thorium, which can be obtained from countries like India, Turkey, Brazil, EU can be considered as independent from any one source of uranium or thorium.\n\n[1] Hansen, Dr. James, ‘4th Generation Nuclear Power’, OSS, 18 January 2009, http://ossfoundation.us/projects/energy/nuclear\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da6dbb54d01f322e18bcdd68845e99e0",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]\n\n[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885\n\n[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff28d8dd33d6af61d5f09b564ba8a53a",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy The phase out of the nuclear power stations may be costly; however, it will happen sooner or later anyway. Nuclear stations are constantly phased out and new, more advanced plants are built in their place. Old plants require constant investment in safety measures. The costs are thus inevitable. Abandoning nuclear power in many cases need only involve committing to not build more nuclear plants. However, even if the costs of phasing out were higher than costs of sustaining network of nuclear plants, the gain from more safe, more environmental friendly energy would outweigh the harms. Concerning the social costs, workers in nuclear power plants could find jobs in broader energy production market, since the technical requirements for jobs are not that different in different power plants and there would still be demand for jobs in the energy sector.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1d30f6c59fd1ff9633fb84b9fc3da2b",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy The most recent power plants such as Olkiluoto are third generation plants. Fourth generation plants are still decades away. Yes research into Fusion must continue but the plant that is being built is simply a test plant and even it won’t be fully testing until 2027, it would be decades after that before any commercial plants come into operation even if everything works. Research into both types but particularly fusion are separate from the nuclear power plants that Europe currently has. These could all be shut down without any impact on research. Moreover why spend billions on research when we already have technologies that provide clean electricity?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b62c02959b97248fbd77ca3634cff9b",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy Nuclear energy goes against Green World\n\nIn order not to harm environment, not to cause climate changes, renewable power plants (wind, water, solar) should be used. However, these do not work together with nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants – giant very hot machines – are designed to operate at full speed (85%) all the time. They are not designed to change the output quickly. Since they are very expensive to build, they are not economic unless operated at full speed (also turning off and on is expensive). Solar and wind power plants are not stable (output varies because of natural factors) and thus need a backup, called a baseload. Nuclear plants are not a good backup for renewables. We need nimble plants in order to support wind and solar plants. Nuclear power stations do not work with solar, wind and water power stations, because they are running at full speed all the time (because of economic and technical reasons). Instead gas plants that can be powered up and down as required are needed to balance power generation. If we want to move towards Green World – nuclear energy does not help us to do so. [1]\n\nIt is generally agreed that we want more renewable power generation in Europe even if there are disagreements about where plants should be situated or how much must come from renewable sources. The European Union aims to have 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. [2] And if it is to meet CO2 reduction targets far more will be needed in following decades.\n\nNuclear is also not as helpful as renewables in meeting these CO2 reduction targets. It is estimated that renewables produce 10-40g of CO2 pre kWh of electricity produced, but nuclear is currently much higher at 90-140g/kWh, though still only a tenth of coal. And as mining becomes more difficult it is estimated that this could double making nuclear no better for reducing CO2 than gas power. [3]\n\n[1] Nelder, Chris, ‘Why baseload power is doomed’, smartplanet, 28 March 2012, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445\n\n[2] European Commission, ‘Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources’, Europa.eu, 17 October 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/biofuels/com_2012_0595_en.pdf\n\n[3] ‘CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations’, Time for change, May 2012, http://www.timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b347433cd48024b5eb47b34d09125b8c",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy Nuclear energy is non-renewable source\n\nWhile nuclear power it is often proclaimed as clean this does not mean it is a renewable resource like wind, wave, or solar power. Nuclear power plants use uranium to produce energy, which, of course, needs to be mined. Currently only 2.3% of uranium used in reactors in EU is mined in the EU [1] . Moreover, the world’s main uranium deposits are located outside the EU. The use of nuclear energy thus undermines energy self-sufficiency of the EU. This may pose a serious threat to the future. Natural (and other) resources are usually used as the first intermediates of diplomatic disputes. When a country wants to exert diplomatic pressure on another country (or bloc of countries like EU), trade bans or embargos are widely used. For example in 2009 Russia stopped gas supply to Ukraine due to trade dispute between their two national gas companies. Therefore, the supply of uranium may be susceptible to diplomatic and trade relations (which are often volatile) and consequently nuclear power may not be reliable. Is it one of the aims of the EU to become less dependent on imported material needed for energy production. [2]\n\nAs a non renewable resource we also need to think about the possibility of supplies running out. The concept of ‘peak uranium’ is sometimes overblown but there is only a 230 years supply of uranium at current consumption rates. If the price gets high enough then there are other options for production, including from seawater, but this would clearly mean a big increase in cost and concerns that producers will try to keep cheaper uranium to themselves and export for much higher prices. [3] Thus over longer term the nuclear energy may become far more expensive, or even unavailable due to lack of fuel.\n\n[1] Euratom, ‘Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2012’, European Commission, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/ar/last.pdf\n\n[2] European Commission, ‘Renewable energy’, Europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/index_en.htm\n\n[3] Fetter, Steve, ‘How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?’, Scientific American, 26 January 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e87dfa7530093e5f9a73182210a77948",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy\n\nHistorically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength.\n\nThe EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2]\n\nOnly if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere.\n\n[1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, http://www.ncbj.gov.pl/en/node/2622\n\n[2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013, http://www.iter.org/proj/itermission\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5304249f873052cf9b8175dac8e06ad2",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy Highly efficient when operating at high rates\n\nThe nuclear power plants have huge energy outputs. That means we can produce energy faster at lower price, due to the high energy density of uranium (we can extract far more energy from it than from any other source). Thanks to this fact, there is no need to build many power plants, since a few nuclear plants can easily supply whole country, for example in Slovakia only 2 power plants supply more than half of electric energy. This is beneficial because residents object to having power generation nearby, building one nuclear plant affects many fewer people than the number of wind turbines that would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity. The nuclear power plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland will produce 13TWh per year [1] equivalent to more than 3000 wind turbines. [2] This has the additional environmental benefit of requiring fewer materials for construction.\n\n[1] ‘Olkiluoto 3 – Finland’, Areva, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-2389/\n\n[2] ‘FAQ – Output’, National Wind Watch, http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php , This gives 3.285GWh per year for a turbine which would be more like 4000, but it also states that the wind industry say their turbines work at a higher capacity than that accounted for in their calculation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd41a5181a39e2b9450e97d0da2156af",
"text": "climate energy pollution house believes eu should abandon nuclear energy Phasing nuclear out would be too expensive\n\nAny phase out of nuclear energy in the EU would be tremendously costly, to an extent indebted Europe cannot afford. First costs stem from closing of nuclear reactors. These would include safely disposing or sealing all radioactive materials involved in production, closing buildings, dismantling the generators etc. In the UK the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that 19 nuclear plants in the UK that are set for decommissioning will cost £70 billion. [1] Secondly, new generation of power plants would need to be built. Suitable places would need to be found, land bought and prepared for construction, power plants and electricity network constructed. These alone would cost sums counted in billions of euros regardless of whether these plants are renewable or not. Moreover, social costs would have to be included, since many highly specialised jobs in the nuclear power industry would be irrecoverably lost. The nuclear power industry in the UK alone employs 44,000 people. [2]\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Nuclear clean-up ‘to cost £70bn’’, 30 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm\n\n[2] Cogent, ‘Nuclear industry profile’, 2013, http://www.cogent-ssc.com/industry/nuclear/industry_profile.php\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c22212d0342c2e88d70b73349b4af55d
|
Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience
Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of "free" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1.
1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian:
|
[
{
"docid": "69a700a0ad4b5dd98c0c872e49c9e10a",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1dc64f44dc9b36edbf1feeec7d86c9b5",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5043cb0a52507fb0a56a9356dac6dca",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become \"hollowed out\", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.).\n\n1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9363ddff572efba051c07fe2e67170f1",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc2c93ceaf0dff4775e9c89bc43565d",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d06a086b0ebe5e36192f541927bacc3",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b67198fcb53828551376878775ebe219",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres bring development in their wake.\n\nOut of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing \"brownfield\" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1.\n\n1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ed4862c44679198faf6739ce054b525",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Malls promote competition and serve consumers well\n\nHypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1.\n\n1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec29f95831b2b9c4512f59234e5b57b1",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town malls damage town centres\n\nOut of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites.\n\n1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4b58250edeb6bde55e6afeabdc199c9",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment\n\nOut of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1\n\n1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e05093965123ebedd97c7b8007950bf",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres damage local communities' identities\n\nOut of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can \"hollow out\" the community identity and economic viability of the original town.\n\n1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly:\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0a7896d4b6d5dce9fa375d7e50885c0e
|
Malls promote competition and serve consumers well
Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1.
1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen:
|
[
{
"docid": "f5043cb0a52507fb0a56a9356dac6dca",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become \"hollowed out\", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.).\n\n1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review:\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1dc64f44dc9b36edbf1feeec7d86c9b5",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a700a0ad4b5dd98c0c872e49c9e10a",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9363ddff572efba051c07fe2e67170f1",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc2c93ceaf0dff4775e9c89bc43565d",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d06a086b0ebe5e36192f541927bacc3",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b67198fcb53828551376878775ebe219",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres bring development in their wake.\n\nOut of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing \"brownfield\" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1.\n\n1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20528c4c138b5f62c21bec438958993",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience\n\nOut of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of \"free\" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1.\n\n1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec29f95831b2b9c4512f59234e5b57b1",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town malls damage town centres\n\nOut of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites.\n\n1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4b58250edeb6bde55e6afeabdc199c9",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment\n\nOut of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1\n\n1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e05093965123ebedd97c7b8007950bf",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres damage local communities' identities\n\nOut of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can \"hollow out\" the community identity and economic viability of the original town.\n\n1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly:\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a2bcda6936e9366e3b4232a2feaa9100
|
Out of town malls damage town centres
Out of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites.
1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch:
|
[
{
"docid": "0d06a086b0ebe5e36192f541927bacc3",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9363ddff572efba051c07fe2e67170f1",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc2c93ceaf0dff4775e9c89bc43565d",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dc64f44dc9b36edbf1feeec7d86c9b5",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a700a0ad4b5dd98c0c872e49c9e10a",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5043cb0a52507fb0a56a9356dac6dca",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become \"hollowed out\", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.).\n\n1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4b58250edeb6bde55e6afeabdc199c9",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment\n\nOut of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1\n\n1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e05093965123ebedd97c7b8007950bf",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres damage local communities' identities\n\nOut of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can \"hollow out\" the community identity and economic viability of the original town.\n\n1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b67198fcb53828551376878775ebe219",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town centres bring development in their wake.\n\nOut of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing \"brownfield\" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1.\n\n1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20528c4c138b5f62c21bec438958993",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience\n\nOut of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of \"free\" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1.\n\n1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ed4862c44679198faf6739ce054b525",
"text": "pollution weight society house would drive out town shopping centre Malls promote competition and serve consumers well\n\nHypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1.\n\n1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen:\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f9088e8f7d902a2af705dacaf759e91f
|
Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans
Protecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans. [1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans. [2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered. [3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans. [4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species.
[1] Ishwaran, N., & Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005 http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868449
[2] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674
[3] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674
[4] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674
|
[
{
"docid": "7685c38929cf35f3f2e821c65b731206",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species.\n\n[1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002. http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7d50cd1e8fbb7a08bbd8cae5a954cae2",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way.\n\n[1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5e158e0a8edee48d9d0b11615846abe",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eadad9601af0d6d6aef4c366df4988d",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "894dcb5018dae97101994823082a9857",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48efa4f42b86b20bd350a08a5fd24d81",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering.\n\n[1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4d4734d26ec32129b435d7d6260ad30",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fcd4d3232be2a6fbb38ee9528c87d34",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc112c05c4bdf83378dacfbdc644274a",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Aesthetics\n\nAn environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment.\n\n[1] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d51c557e6f590d07a85b638f69ae5c04",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species\n\nHuman moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "891f0ccae975cdebb46c0170700ab2cc",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Humanity owes a moral responsibility to future generations\n\nHuman moral responsibility to future generations: Species extinction is an irrevocable occurrence. Outside of the film 'Jurassic Park', extinct species cannot be summoned back from the grave once human action has put them there. This means that when a current generation makes the decision not to protect an endangered species and thus allows human action to drive it to extinction, this denies future generations the ability to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the survival of that endangered species, especially considering that they might want that species to exist for the aforementioned scientific, medical, aesthetic or moral reasons. For example, there is a great modern-day interest in the dodo species of bird which was hunted to extinction in Mauritius in the 17th Century. [1] The opinion of many in the modern world today is one of regret at the bird's extinction and that it should have been protected, but a lack of consideration of the wishes of future generations in the 17th Century has meant that the humans of the 21st Century are denied the ability to decide on the value of this species themselves. Because we place a moral value on the ability of humans to make decisions (as we consider it to be a good thing when we ourselves have this ability) we should recognise that the possibly differing opinions of future generations should constrain our choices somewhat, and we should protect endangered species so that future generations can decide for themselves regarding their value.\n\n[1] BBC News “Dodo skeleton find in Mauritius”. BBC News. 24 June 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5113372.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b9adaf67c46ed31f4b62f92ce8285c1",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected The term \"endangered\" is inconsistently applied\n\nThe practical difficulties of the 'endangered' status: The complications which have grown up surrounding the 'endangered' status given to some species are in themselves a good reason to do away with this cumbersome and harmful practice. It should firstly be noted that it can be incredibly difficult to get species removed from the 'protected' lists even once they have been added even when their numbers show they are no longer in jeopardy. The grey wolf again serves as a good example; it is considered to be 'endangered' (and thus protected) in the United States, as there are only 3,700 such wolves in the lower 48 States today, despite the fact that an estimated 58,000 grey wolves live in the wild in Alaska and Canada. [1] This is clearly an example of a misapplication of the 'endangered' label but which is incredibly difficult to revoke once it has been given, due to pressure from ecological groups and the media.\n\nThe sort of laws used to 'protect' endangered species may even incentivize the exact opposite kind of behaviour on the part of landowners. When, for example, a farmer finds on his land an animal from an endangered species, and the law thus requires him to make significant changes to his farming practices to protect the creature, this imposes a significant economic cost on him. This means that that farmer may have a large economic incentive to simply dispose of the creature and hide the evidence of its presence, when in the absence of the law the farmer might not take any steps to intentionally exterminate all examples of that endangered species on his land. Economists writing in the Journal of Law and Economics found an example of similarly perverse incentives provided by endangered species protection law amongst logging companies in the United States. When faced with a protected species of woodpecker which preferred to nest in trees at least 70 years old, and which when found, the law required timber owners not to harvest wood within a large area around that woodpecker's nest, loggers simply responded by harvesting more trees in areas where these woodpeckers might appear and by intentionally harvesting tees at age 40 instead of waiting for them to mature to 70 and thus becoming potential habitats for the woodpeckers. This resulted in even less available habitat for the woodpeckers than before the protection laws were passed [2] This example helps to further illustrate how 'protecting' endangered species requires cumbersome legislation that is prone to mistakes, difficult to retract and may incentivize even more harmful behaviour towards these species than if the laws did not exist.\n\n[1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/31/shoot-shovel-and-shut-up\n\n[2] Lueck, Dean, and Michael, Jeffery A. “Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act”. Journal of Law and Economics. Vol. 46. No. 1. April 2003\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a71093229e8b07f1859a6c974151151",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Human rights trump those of lower animals\n\nWhy human rights always trump animal rights: It has already been established that laws protecting endangered species cause harm to humans by denying them the opportunity to engage in behaviour they would otherwise desire to do. The problem with this is that it elevates 'animal rights' to an equal plane with human rights and therefore restricts human life and happiness. This is wrong as humans enjoy superior mental faculties to animals and also have greater sentience, meaning that humans are aware of their pain, suffering and the opportunities denied to them (for example through laws restricting land development) in a way in which animals are not. As a consequence, we should cause humans to have less happiness in life in order to protect the lives of 'endangered species', as animals' lives, 'happiness' and suffering are less meaningful than that of humans.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21c61aaa20cdc89af24c95a5951d7a64",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Protecting endangered species can harm human communities\n\nProtecting endangered species can harm humans: Protecting endangered species by definition means restricting activity that humans would otherwise want to do, be it by turning woodland into farmland, turning meadows into housing developments, or by preventing us from eliminating 'pest' species which kill livestock or damage crops. For example, the reintroduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park has increased once more the risk to livestock in the region and caused economic harms to ranchers there. [1] Some of these species may even pose a threat to human lives, which may have been why they were hunted to extinction in the first place. In any case, less agricultural land and less land for housing can only mean higher food and housing costs (due to their decreased supplies in the face of a rising human population) for people, which has a detrimental impact upon human life.\n\n[1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/31/shoot-shovel-and-shut-up\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15dc545952a0cb574c43da4d44153300",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Species extinction is an inevitable process\n\nSpecies extinction is a part of the natural world: Within evolution species naturally go arise and later become extinct as they struggle to adapt to changing environments and competition with other species. This be regarded as a part of the 'survival of the fittest' which drives evolution. Most extinctions that have occurred did so naturally and without human intervention. It is, for example, estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and humans have existed at the same time as only a fraction of these species. [1] Therefore it cannot be claimed that species going extinct will somehow upset the delicate natural balance or destroy ecosystems. Ecologists and conservationists have in fact struggled to demonstrate the increased material benefits to humans of 'intact' wild systems over man-made ones such as farms and urban environments, which many species simply adapt to. [2] Therefore any claims that humans causing the extinction of other species are somehow acting 'un-naturally' or 'immorally' or that they are risking ecological collapse as a consequence are mistaken, as they fail to understand that extinction occurs as a natural fact and that ecosystems adapt accordingly. No other species acts to prevent species besides itself from becoming extinct, and therefore again allowing another species to die out is in no way 'un-natural.'\n\n[1] Raup, David M. “Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?” W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991\n\n[2] Jenkins, Martin. “Prospects for Biodiversity”. Science. 14 November 2003. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/1175.abstract\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f45d2b18e6063d50e027808ebb1da1c3
|
The term "endangered" is inconsistently applied
The practical difficulties of the 'endangered' status: The complications which have grown up surrounding the 'endangered' status given to some species are in themselves a good reason to do away with this cumbersome and harmful practice. It should firstly be noted that it can be incredibly difficult to get species removed from the 'protected' lists even once they have been added even when their numbers show they are no longer in jeopardy. The grey wolf again serves as a good example; it is considered to be 'endangered' (and thus protected) in the United States, as there are only 3,700 such wolves in the lower 48 States today, despite the fact that an estimated 58,000 grey wolves live in the wild in Alaska and Canada. [1] This is clearly an example of a misapplication of the 'endangered' label but which is incredibly difficult to revoke once it has been given, due to pressure from ecological groups and the media.
The sort of laws used to 'protect' endangered species may even incentivize the exact opposite kind of behaviour on the part of landowners. When, for example, a farmer finds on his land an animal from an endangered species, and the law thus requires him to make significant changes to his farming practices to protect the creature, this imposes a significant economic cost on him. This means that that farmer may have a large economic incentive to simply dispose of the creature and hide the evidence of its presence, when in the absence of the law the farmer might not take any steps to intentionally exterminate all examples of that endangered species on his land. Economists writing in the Journal of Law and Economics found an example of similarly perverse incentives provided by endangered species protection law amongst logging companies in the United States. When faced with a protected species of woodpecker which preferred to nest in trees at least 70 years old, and which when found, the law required timber owners not to harvest wood within a large area around that woodpecker's nest, loggers simply responded by harvesting more trees in areas where these woodpeckers might appear and by intentionally harvesting tees at age 40 instead of waiting for them to mature to 70 and thus becoming potential habitats for the woodpeckers. This resulted in even less available habitat for the woodpeckers than before the protection laws were passed [2] This example helps to further illustrate how 'protecting' endangered species requires cumbersome legislation that is prone to mistakes, difficult to retract and may incentivize even more harmful behaviour towards these species than if the laws did not exist.
[1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/31/shoot-shovel-and-shut-up
[2] Lueck, Dean, and Michael, Jeffery A. “Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act”. Journal of Law and Economics. Vol. 46. No. 1. April 2003
|
[
{
"docid": "9fcd4d3232be2a6fbb38ee9528c87d34",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "894dcb5018dae97101994823082a9857",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48efa4f42b86b20bd350a08a5fd24d81",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering.\n\n[1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4d4734d26ec32129b435d7d6260ad30",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d50cd1e8fbb7a08bbd8cae5a954cae2",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way.\n\n[1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5e158e0a8edee48d9d0b11615846abe",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eadad9601af0d6d6aef4c366df4988d",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7685c38929cf35f3f2e821c65b731206",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species.\n\n[1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002. http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a71093229e8b07f1859a6c974151151",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Human rights trump those of lower animals\n\nWhy human rights always trump animal rights: It has already been established that laws protecting endangered species cause harm to humans by denying them the opportunity to engage in behaviour they would otherwise desire to do. The problem with this is that it elevates 'animal rights' to an equal plane with human rights and therefore restricts human life and happiness. This is wrong as humans enjoy superior mental faculties to animals and also have greater sentience, meaning that humans are aware of their pain, suffering and the opportunities denied to them (for example through laws restricting land development) in a way in which animals are not. As a consequence, we should cause humans to have less happiness in life in order to protect the lives of 'endangered species', as animals' lives, 'happiness' and suffering are less meaningful than that of humans.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21c61aaa20cdc89af24c95a5951d7a64",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Protecting endangered species can harm human communities\n\nProtecting endangered species can harm humans: Protecting endangered species by definition means restricting activity that humans would otherwise want to do, be it by turning woodland into farmland, turning meadows into housing developments, or by preventing us from eliminating 'pest' species which kill livestock or damage crops. For example, the reintroduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park has increased once more the risk to livestock in the region and caused economic harms to ranchers there. [1] Some of these species may even pose a threat to human lives, which may have been why they were hunted to extinction in the first place. In any case, less agricultural land and less land for housing can only mean higher food and housing costs (due to their decreased supplies in the face of a rising human population) for people, which has a detrimental impact upon human life.\n\n[1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/31/shoot-shovel-and-shut-up\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15dc545952a0cb574c43da4d44153300",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Species extinction is an inevitable process\n\nSpecies extinction is a part of the natural world: Within evolution species naturally go arise and later become extinct as they struggle to adapt to changing environments and competition with other species. This be regarded as a part of the 'survival of the fittest' which drives evolution. Most extinctions that have occurred did so naturally and without human intervention. It is, for example, estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and humans have existed at the same time as only a fraction of these species. [1] Therefore it cannot be claimed that species going extinct will somehow upset the delicate natural balance or destroy ecosystems. Ecologists and conservationists have in fact struggled to demonstrate the increased material benefits to humans of 'intact' wild systems over man-made ones such as farms and urban environments, which many species simply adapt to. [2] Therefore any claims that humans causing the extinction of other species are somehow acting 'un-naturally' or 'immorally' or that they are risking ecological collapse as a consequence are mistaken, as they fail to understand that extinction occurs as a natural fact and that ecosystems adapt accordingly. No other species acts to prevent species besides itself from becoming extinct, and therefore again allowing another species to die out is in no way 'un-natural.'\n\n[1] Raup, David M. “Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?” W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991\n\n[2] Jenkins, Martin. “Prospects for Biodiversity”. Science. 14 November 2003. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/1175.abstract\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc112c05c4bdf83378dacfbdc644274a",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Aesthetics\n\nAn environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment.\n\n[1] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d51c557e6f590d07a85b638f69ae5c04",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species\n\nHuman moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8980c935cd63819710efbc150a83d313",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans\n\nProtecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans. [1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans. [2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered. [3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans. [4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species.\n\n[1] Ishwaran, N., & Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005 http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868449\n\n[2] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674\n\n[3] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674\n\n[4] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "891f0ccae975cdebb46c0170700ab2cc",
"text": "animals climate house believes endangered species should be protected Humanity owes a moral responsibility to future generations\n\nHuman moral responsibility to future generations: Species extinction is an irrevocable occurrence. Outside of the film 'Jurassic Park', extinct species cannot be summoned back from the grave once human action has put them there. This means that when a current generation makes the decision not to protect an endangered species and thus allows human action to drive it to extinction, this denies future generations the ability to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the survival of that endangered species, especially considering that they might want that species to exist for the aforementioned scientific, medical, aesthetic or moral reasons. For example, there is a great modern-day interest in the dodo species of bird which was hunted to extinction in Mauritius in the 17th Century. [1] The opinion of many in the modern world today is one of regret at the bird's extinction and that it should have been protected, but a lack of consideration of the wishes of future generations in the 17th Century has meant that the humans of the 21st Century are denied the ability to decide on the value of this species themselves. Because we place a moral value on the ability of humans to make decisions (as we consider it to be a good thing when we ourselves have this ability) we should recognise that the possibly differing opinions of future generations should constrain our choices somewhat, and we should protect endangered species so that future generations can decide for themselves regarding their value.\n\n[1] BBC News “Dodo skeleton find in Mauritius”. BBC News. 24 June 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5113372.stm\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c5fd1cfc4dfe0b6a692ea657d462d957
|
Nuclear power is very expensive
For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive.
Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great.
1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,
|
[
{
"docid": "1cbd0e5cca098f1425c04295e771ed9f",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive.\n\nAlso the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great.\n\n1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "956e0aebd4f45a990b66d83fd07a34d6",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record and it is haunted by the constant risk of meltdown or explosion. \"No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack\"1. Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima plant has shown the world what happens when cooling systems fail.\n\nThe effects on the local people and the environment are devastating. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not completely safe. It is not worth the risk.\n\nThe dumping of nuclear waste also presents a host of problems. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has been very critical of safety standards within the industry; it is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. According to Agenda 2000: \"The problem of nuclear safety in some candidate countries causes serious concerns to the EU... and should be urgently and effectively addressed. It is imperative that solutions, including closure where required, be found to these issues in accordance with the Community nuclear acquis and a \"nuclear safety culture\" as established in the western world as soon as possible\"2.\n\n1\"End the nuclear age.\" Greenpeace. October 2008 2 European Nuclear Threats Old and New, Nuclear Monitor, November 2003, pp.3-5,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be04ef32707dde6d324e3ba2641aed18",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: \"There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed,\" states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.\n\nThis would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.\n\n1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d09b656007bc137f349f2f8f7cb0b926",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1.\n\nEven if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple \"dirty bomb\" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons.\n\n1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e133b0a8e6a9b39749e887186cb7787",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Nuclear power is no better placed to deliver the amount of energy required. There is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Despite increasing demand the amount of electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to 25% in electricity generation by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GWe by 2020; this fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal [1] .\n\nThe focus on nuclear power diverts attention from other renewables. In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in a Commons debate on a 2003 Energy White Paper: 'It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables' [2] .\n\n[1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels.\n\n[2] The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c944f0071ba9863154990a98cd71d39",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear There is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit with sufficient investment; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions. Any given country can in principle become self-sufficient in terms of renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. Kazakhstan became the world's number one supplier of uranium in 2009, and other major producers such as Russia, Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan may not be reliable1. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil.\n\n1 'Kazakhstan plans to become global leader in uranium production by 2009', Silk Road Intelligencer, 23rd July 2008,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b913b85a53e265f7c24e822a2fdd404",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1.\n\nNuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built.\n\n1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cd1faf9bef290f0814afd0785090eb8",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1.\n\nIt is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations.\n\n1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs.\" Union of Concerned Scientists\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "156c583568f32181ef5405124ade989f",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Promoting continued nuclear research is against our security interests\n\nSpreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings important security benefits. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose signatories include every state in the world apart from India, Pakistan and Israel (plus North Korea and Iran whose membership fluctuates), is largely a provision for the sharing of nuclear power technology, which it promises to share among members who do not produce nuclear weapons (or, in the case of the 5 nuclear states, who commit to a gradual and continual reduction in weapons stockpiles). This has seen states including Brazil and Argentina abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, in order to gain access to nuclear power technology1. It is in our interest to promote peaceful use of nuclear technologies, encouraging scientists to find employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful rather than selling their skills to the highest rogue bidder. The treaty also establishes and sets the remit of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all members are bound to grant unlimited access to in order to facilitate inspection of nuclear facilities. This ensures that facilities cannot surreptitiously be used to facilitate the creation of nuclear weapons.\n\n1 'Nuclear weapons not appealing to all countries' by Renee Montagne, npr, 17th April 2006,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34ef3ee6c20de42c7afda1116c65128d",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Nuclear power is potentially extremely unsafe\n\nIt is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. This is undeserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The four historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, Japan) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have1. \"The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year\"2.\n\nFurther, the two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room. Power stations today are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk.\n\nPerhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us?\n\n1 'Risks of Nuclear Power' by Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, 2Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, \"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\", Washington Post, 4/16/06\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e6193d449b6b8d757ee5885275183b4",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable\n\nThe projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: \"There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of.\" This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1\n\n1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also: http://www.economist.com/node/15865280?story_id=15865280\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e723d16cd61c0e6169b17ee8c0d2ceb",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it\n\nAlthough EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] .\n\n[1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels.\n\n[2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1.\n\n[3] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1147a47bb31f3bd0e060f11d7d2e58",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources\n\nIn many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] .\n\nIt is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] )\n\n[1] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006\n\n[2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801edd87dbf2989d6934e2345ca09c6d",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost\n\nNuclear power is the most practical renewable energy source as all the others face major difficulties either in scaling up to provide enough to be a major component of nations energy mix, don't provide energy all the time, the 'base load', or cause other environmental problems. Nuclear is a proven technology with large firms that can build large amounts of nuclear energy generation capacity.\n\nThe most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power, however, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped; the subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife1. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China2.\n\nWind, tidal, and solar power are all affected by issues of reliability. The tendency of wind power, in particular, to be a volatile source of energy, means that other power sources such as fossil fuel power stations have to make up the shortfall when wind levels drop. Tidal power technology is still in at an early stage and may take years to become profitable. It also has the potential to cause environmental problems in the marine environment. For a large area of the European Union, there is not the potential to exploit solar power as there are not enough hours of sunlight.\n\n\"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.\"3\n\n1 'Environmental Impact of the Aswan High Dam', 2 'Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits' by Jane Macartney, Times Online 27th September 2007, 3\"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\", by Patrick Moore, Washington Post. April 16th, 2006:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52c12c9bd160f264b2240170efbea25a",
"text": "omy general environment climate energy pollution house would go nuclear Nuclear power gives countries energy security and self-sufficiency\n\nIn addition, the use of nuclear power reduces our foreign energy dependency. The European Union is a net importer for energy, and as such is reliant on Russia and Norway, predominantly, for oil and gas supplies. Events such as the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies demonstrated that the EU's energy can easily be disrupted by political situations outside its control1. It also means that the EU could be drawn into disputes between Russia and neighbouring countries because it has a vested interest in the region. This could set a dangerous precedent, where the EU could be intimidated by Russia, because the EU relies so heavily on Russian gas. Building more nuclear power stations would ensure a more secure supply of energy, thereby avoiding the potential for energy supply to become a politically charged issue on an international scale.\n\n1 'Russia-Ukraine gas dispute', Wikipedia\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ff74f0c9d0281a05fbf16cdc2f26bca7
|
Head of state immunity
Traditionally, heads of state have had immunity in foreign courts. This is for the normal functioning of diplomacy – so heads of state can engage in business at other states and travel to summits without the risk of harassment by vexatious claims in foreign courts, or foreign governments trying to attack the decisions of other governments in their own courts.
The ICC trying sitting heads of state would set a terrible precedent of a method of regime change – not even by foreign militaries, but by the ICC prosecutor. Regimes should change according to democratic mandate not foreign courts.
|
[
{
"docid": "cff5f556c98d9cea56f08deb0ba1f80b",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting It is accepted as a position of international criminal law that head of state immunity does not apply before international tribunals [1] . Any such immunity that Kenya had was waived by them joining the ICC, which they did voluntarily.\n\nEven so, just because someone has a position of power does not mean they should have impunity from liability for very serious crimes.\n\n[1] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), 14 February 2002, http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3c6cd39b4\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c2d17f9f0e2c5c286cdcb801bbd5453b",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting A previous Kenyan government, operating with a democratic mandate, ratified the Rome Statute. Therefore, there is no interference with Kenyan sovereignty: a Kenyan government legally and lawfully submitted Kenya to the jurisdiction of the ICC.\n\nBesides, a “democratic mandate” would not stop the prosecution of a prosecution of someone for an offence committed prior to getting into office, which is what happened in Kenya. Neither is a “democratic mandate” a defence to perform crimes against humanity either in or out of office.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66696157bf22af63ae02d5fd1e96512f",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink.\n\nEven so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91a231a8dcfb6eead7ef2b079a97bafc",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Not every defendant is a head of state. While justice should aim to treat all defendants alike, there are some cases where things have to be changed in order to allow states to function.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feb7c5aa2126131ccb4974894b265b5b",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Even though all parties agree to this, it is not appropriate for the ICC to be trying a sitting head of state anyway. The ICC is accepting this by holding the trial by videolink – no other court would do such a thing.\n\nWhile it sounds tempting to allow Kenyatta and Ruto to participate in their trial by Skype, they may not continue to participate and simply refuse to leave Kenya if they are convicted.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab76bbdb05235112758992442fc52df0",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.\n\nIn addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.\n\n[1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000098610&story_title=raila-s...\n\n[2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000098841&story_title=Kenya-p...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b32cd9129f542d682b7bb6989c0f7e4",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya doesn’t need a trial. The Kenyan parliament voted against such a thing – the Kenyan people decided in 2013 that they want to give Kenyatta and Ruto a democratic mandate.\n\nWhile there is a terror threat – something that Kenyatta and Ruto can deal with in their role as head of state – Kenya did not have post election violence in 2013, and ethnic conflict is not going on at a major level. Even if there is no justice, there is peace, which is more important.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "578d934f5a00ecbfa8b378753da34a1e",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Interferes with a democratic mandate\n\nUnlike many of the other ICC defendants, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto have a democratic mandate from elections that “represented the will of the voters” [1] – electoral mandates given to them after their indictment by the International Criminal Court.\n\nThis must be respected by the ICC and the international community as a whole: even though they are suspected of crimes against humanity by a foreign court.\n\n[1] European Union Election Observation Mission To Kenya, General Elections 2013 :Final Report, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/eu-eom-kenya-20...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000379b6ff64203ac8a3dc157307dbeb",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting A delay is necessary for national security\n\nKenya is at risk of terrorist attack. Al-Shabab, a group linked to Al Qaeda have launched a number of attacks against Kenya. In addition to the Westgate massacre, there have been grenade attacks on bus terminals [1] and suicide bombings in refugee camps [2] .\n\nKenya’s waters are also used by Somali based pirates as a ground for attacks on international shipping, including possibly targeting ships travelling towards the port of Mombasa.\n\nIt is more important to the international community to have credible action taken in order to protect the Kenyan people from terrorism. This needs a strong Kenyan government – which means that there cannot be a change due to an international trial.\n\n[1] Associated Press, “Two grenade blasts rattle Nairobi; 1 dead”, USA Today, 25/10/2011 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-24/kenya-grenade...\n\n[2] Ombati, Cyrus, “Terror suspects die after bombs explode on them”, Standard Digital News, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000075252&story_title=Kenya-T...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4997ea6b8d21a003ed12775a0e3be9ef",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya needs the trial now\n\nWithout justice, there cannot be peace. Following the total failure of the Kenyan justice system to take action, exemplified by the Parliament’s complete and utter rejection of the Waki Commission, the ICC, which Kenya voluntarily signed up to, has to step in.\n\nEthnic violence still goes on in Kenya [1] , and if there is impunity in this case, no message will be sent out: justice must be done and seen to be done to prevent similar abuses and prevent justice being taken outside of the courts.\n\n[1] Wachira, Muchemi, “Cattle raids and tribal rivalries to blame for perennial conflict”, Daily Nation, November 18 2012, http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Cattle-raids-and-tribal-rivalries-to-blame/...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55cb13225bd5b83fc52440265420db63",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Just hold the trial by videolink\n\nIt has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink [1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves.\n\nBearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial.\n\n[1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013, http://www.kansas.com/2013/11/27/3145973/international-court-tweaks-tria...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48e1590edefd32275809eaf73975d8d",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates\n\nIrrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants.\n\nA person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4785930dffdf377f410778101f2eb10b",
"text": "africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya would be better off without them\n\nKenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.\n\nIn addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.\n\n[1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000098610&story_title=raila-s...\n\n[2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000098841&story_title=Kenya-p...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
65ea8d189995579150f281c858b910af
|
Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict
Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]
Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.
[1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)
[2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "457ee17f2f71edb883b805fd07b8601f",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1193992a9f3d5e20640219a22a339352",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national security as is the case elsewhere. It would simply be based on the recognition that our security is best secured by having other countries that are equally tolerant towards all faiths with the attendant peaceful relations and cooperation this brings in their international relations.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cea6f125e1788881fb732d9a78be53c",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resulted in regimes becoming less cooperative even when the policy is a success. For example the transition in Egypt has changed the country from being a key ally of the United States to a nation that is increasingly Islamist and potentially a threat to another key ally, Israel. Now 77% of Egyptians say \"The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved.\" [1]\n\n[1] Rogin, Josh, ‘New Poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 19 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8af191040f3a2e65e388e0dbb32181f1",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.\n\nIf we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.\n\nThis leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?\n\n[1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c81defcb2b3849ffdea4e9ad28a900d6",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]\n\nIt is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]\n\nFinally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.\n\n[1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001\n\n[2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006\n\n[3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "859077facd3a628ee683080a1be6406c",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.\n\n[1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e952281ce3b89633058ec67b7c242fd",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general Religion does not motivate foreign policy\n\nReligion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.\n\nNations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]\n\nWith religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.\n\n[1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012\n\n[2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "114eef8539eb5addb9ebe9eaa2bf8377",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered\n\nOf course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.\n\nMoreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.\n\n[1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012\n\n[2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5652b50090bcb1e9dbf15cd3f0d87684",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict\n\nWhile there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.\n\n[1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.\n\n[2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20 September 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-findings.aspx http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-methodology.aspx\n\n[3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9960fdb63eeda33d063fb08242fd0181",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society\n\nDemocratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.\n\n[1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.\n\n[2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1\n\n[3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "735ac4a8e6c1f304665338184dd8b316",
"text": "bate living difference international global religion religion general It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat\n\nThere is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where “religious freedoms may be suppressed”. [1] All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. As William Inboden notes “Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests... Stated simply: There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States.” [2] Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy.\n\n[1] Statement, Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regarding religious freedom, U.S. Department of State, 6 October 1999, (near the end)\n\n[2] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e4fb32d16152546e44bddabf8cb71367
|
An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money
International trials are expensive – 14% of the AU’s annual budget for an ICC trial [1] .
The ICC is cheaper than the cost of the tribunal system – the cost of the Charles Taylor trial was roughly two and a half times that of the $20M figure for ICC trials. Africa already contributes little to the budget of the ICC. The ICC will be cheaper than standalone tribunals thanks to economies of scale.
The African Union has a track record of failures as well – NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development tried to have a quasi-judicial element aiming to create rulings against corruption, but failed [2] .
[1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012, http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-criminal-court
[2] Editorial, ‘African Criminal Court Not Viable’, the Star, 17 July 2012, http://allafrica.com/stories/201207180064.html
|
[
{
"docid": "d3d9a4eab6cd9abcaea5bda70a391b18",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african Peace is cheaper than war – however much a court case costs, in both human lives and money, it is better for there to be a trial.\n\nEven if it is more expensive, justice is priceless – it is not something that can be subjected to cost-benefit analyses or bean counting.\n\nThe reason why Western countries fund the ICC is not some form of imperialism – simply a desire for global peace, justice and security so they would likely be willing to keep paying much of the cost.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6e48f84198505a79599975a96b9478a",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african By being a court for the African continent by the African continent, there will not be room for allegations of imperialism and/or racism that already exist against the International Criminal Court.\n\nIn addition, the African states that are members of the International Criminal Court have chosen to do so – it is not a violation of state sovereignty for a state to voluntarily sign a treaty even if that treaty restricts the actions of future governments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1babb005e1ad0887918d35b3006ee48c",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african An African Criminal Court instead of African ICC membership would not lead to impunity – just more local courts. The principle of complementarity, allowing national courts to take appropriate action – is already enshrined in the ICC. In a particularly bad case, the UN Security Council could still refer a situation to the ICC.\n\nRunning an African Criminal Court in tandem with the ICC would allow another layer of regional justice to bring the Nuremberg precedent – leaders held criminally responsible for criminal actions – in to fruition in Africa.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d2490c6ff367dc161d867445fad08d1",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african If it is a damp squib, so be it – other international organizations have fallen in to disuse – UN institutions that only exist on paper such as the Trusteeship Council are not doing any harm and there would be the fallback of returning to the ICC if things go wrong.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b22c1868db7bf49ab11825c2d410e55a",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african African states have been happy with the ICC in the past – they referred ICC cases to the court themselves.\n\nIf African states were to set up their own court, it would be unclear how it would work with the existing framework of the ICC as some African states may wish to remain ICC members. Also, a regional body would still lead to allegations of a “foreign court”, while at the same time placing the decisions in the hands of judges who may be less insulated from regional geopolitical pressures.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a5f4b29cd81fa3f2ccf22c6549b199d",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african Drugs trafficking was considered as a role for the ICC, but rejected as unworkable – an ACC would face the same problems. “Unconstitutonal change of government” would be open to rampant political abuse, allowing existing governments to cling on to power.\n\nNo other supranational regional body has tried having its own prosecution system or criminal courts – not even the European Union. Regional bodies can – and should – have courts to deal with treaty interpretation or human rights treaties, but regional criminal courts are a major step into the unknown. Criminal cases are best served by one nation, or all of them – not a regional bloc with its own tensions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3458d0c200d61d6864b499fcdca1bda2",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african There isn’t such a balancing act – without justice there cannot be peace as it is simply likely to lead to attempts at retribution or vigilante justice. Justice is a universal value, an end in itself. It is not something that can be given away as a bargaining chip.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "234e5ad4dedc50fb789699bbb983dbbe",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african Almost all of the cases where people have been indicted before the ICC – DR Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast – have been referred to the court by African nations themselves. Those that have not were referred to the UN Security Council. The only case where the Office of the Prosecutor started a case leading to incitement was the Kenya case, Kenya having signed and ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC can only act where it has jurisdiction [1] - it is not a kangaroo court for particular cases.\n\nThe ICC has looked in to cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Honduras, the Mediterranean sea (an Israeli attack on Comorosian, Greek and Cambodian ships), Korea, Colombia, Georgia and Palestine [2] .\n\n[1] Rome Statute, Article 22\n\n[2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "268ae10392be1669d4fc09210cc13bf4",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african ACC could destabilize Africa\n\nDepending on how the treaty is drawn up, an African Criminal Court could be open to abuse. If it has too broad powers, it could lead to political trials thanks to judges following orders from their domestic governments, and complaints to it by governments in diplomatic spats rather than actually resolving serious international criminal law crimes.\n\nThe same disputes that exist now within the ICC over issues such as interference with national sovereignty could just be replicated on a smaller scale – but rather than resembling a failure of any international body, it would be a regional body and lead to greater problems. If the ICC indicts a leader there is anger at the international community, if an ACC does the same there is a split in the AU.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba0a5e8109422e0ce97dc86b9b943c10",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african Just as much of a violation of sovereignty as the ICC\n\nPart of the calls for an African Criminal Court are based on the perception that the national sovereignty of African nations is being attacked in some way before the International Criminal Court.\n\nHowever, an African Criminal Court would be just as much of a violation of the sovereignty of individual African nations as the ICC; it is a system of courts outside the control of the nation of those it is trying.\n\nEuropean states object to courts outside their control dictating even when they are regional courts – consider the reactions to the European Court of Human Rights on areas like voting for prisoners or to the European Court of Justice. That these are regional not global courts makes little difference to national opinion. It is no surprise then that not even the EU with its close relations has attempted a supra national criminal court system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac963e07438ecb16bd7dd9e13fc9b53",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african Anti-ICC sentiment is a simple desire for impunity\n\nThe sole motive for the anti-ICC arguments raised by organizations such as the African Union is a drive towards impunity – particularly for heads of state. The prosecutions of Uhuru Kenyatta and Omar al-Bashir, so viciously opposed by the AU, are a show that heads of state are and should be subject to the international criminal law – a principle that dates back to Nuremberg.\n\nAn African Criminal Court would simply be granting African leaders’ carte blanche to perform crimes against humanity, as there would be a ready-made court to acquit them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f921df276289ad257b835249b67bbe9",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african Regional court is “best of both worlds”\n\nA regional court would be a good way to balance the competing issues between the legitimate concerns of the African states and the International Criminal Court.\n\nIt would be able to provide an African solution to African problems, with no accusations of external interference or colonialism. Similarly, it would have some of the advantages of the ICC particularly its independence from individual states, meaning those in high places are more likely to be held to account. With this accountability to an African court there would be an impression of being held to account by peers not outsiders.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ba88b5419441cf2e518320ea69308d",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african ICC doesn’t strike right balance between peace and justice for Africa\n\nThe balance between peace and justice is a complex issue. The ICC has disregarded peace as a priority in cases, focusing exclusively on justice by indicting individuals, which reduces the diplomatic leeway and drives those indicted towards a bunker mentality. The result then may be the conflict goes on longer and more crimes are committed. Peace and preventing future crimes should come before justice for past crimes. The ICC have focused on prosecuting Omar al Bashir, but it may be a better option to focus on diplomatic alternatives to trials for dealing with the conflict in Darfur.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea7aa67a6977aa3b6f93b4f0fee006cc",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african ICC is biased against Africans\n\nAll of the ongoing ICC prosecutions are based on events in Africa, and all those on trial are Africans.\n\nThe ICC has not brought actions following the invasion of Iraq, or the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Colombia. The lack of action in any matter outside sub-Saharan Africa shows that the international community are happy to allow the ICC to exclusively prosecute Africans. The UN Security Council, which contains no African permanent members, can veto any possible prosecution [1] and refer a case to the ICC [2] ..\n\nReplacing the ICC with an African Criminal Court would stop this bias, or perception of bias. This would be done by withdrawing from the Rome statute and the ICC which has been labelled as Western imperialism by people such as Rwandan president Paul Kagame [3] .\n\n[1] Rome Statute, Article 16\n\n[2] Rome Statute, Article 13\n\n[3] Du Plessis, footnote 36 (dead links)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13da3be6b0d8714f43e7c0cb1c6061c5",
"text": "africa law human rights international law house would create african ACC could deal with pan-African problems that the ICC does not address\n\nIt has been suggested that offences such as “unconstitutional change of government”, drug trafficking, piracy and corruption [1] should be added to the jurisdiction of an African Criminal Court.\n\nThe ICC is limited to only a small number of crimes. However, an African Criminal Court could not only deal with the existing crimes, but create pan-African solutions in terms of dealing with a number of issues where Africa needs particular solutions.\n\nAn ACC could deal with piracy off the coast of East Africa, where there is no effective court system, due to Somalia amounting to a failed state. Similarly, “unconstitutional change of government” prosecutions could amount to a deterrent to coups.\n\n[1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012, http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-cr...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c9be8484704533dc61e51d2c995e383d
|
Unlikely to make any progress
Weapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.
[1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10367242/Chemical-watchdog-chief-calls-for-Syria-ceasefire.html
[2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24566722
|
[
{
"docid": "8d21ce4805a75a7ad82e0cc69335b90a",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc791311a109f957bbdd379f9212ff97",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f771503604423483547036821d67a92c",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dadef8c7448134678d697f4814a759f8",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "646a38c52f9e2714fe6f536a4389b60f",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9e75d7230af11971260f88c46fc430a",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’. [1]\n\n[1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/don-let-assad-sign-chemical-weapons-convention-syria-behalf-201392981058347857.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82fbb40121fa91e8b4c08135528e8035",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.\n\n[1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/09/12/would-the-syria-deal-be-a-coercive-diplomacy-success/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78edae3c58ff7a2721e67f53e0843f77",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Taking the weapons inspectors out of Syria need not be permanent, simply until there is peace and hopefully a new regime.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff298f6a3d30c2641d8aa32081c4b449",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors What about biological weapons?\n\nChemical weapons are a horrifying weapon of mass destruction but they are by no means the only such horrific weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence says “We judge that some elements of Syria’s biological warfare programme might have advanced beyond the research and development stage and might be capable of limited agent production, based on the duration of its longstanding programme”. [1] Biological weapons could potentially be even more devastating than chemical weapons as they don’t necessarily affect just a localised area then disperse. As with other viruses they can be passed from person to person. In a country like Syria where the health services have broken down, and basically don’t exist in opposition areas the result could be huge numbers of deaths. It is inconsistent to disarm one type of weapon while leaving another type of WMD available to the Syrian regime.\n\n[1] AFP, ‘Syria ‘may be able to produce biological weapons’’, The Telegraph, 29 January 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10605512/Syria-may-be-able-to-produce-biological-weapons.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db7e6998799a6ff79f471cb9422dc140",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors don’t solve the real problem\n\nThe biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013 [1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths. [2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution.\n\n[1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/group-says-syria-death-toll-at-115000/\n\n[2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/22/syria-attack/2683855/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5dabc6da7b5e2668da7e45f76a64d9e",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Syria has not lived up to its commitments\n\nSyria is falling well behind on handing over its weapons. The deadliest chemicals were supposed to be removed by 1st January and the rest by 6th February. Neither happened. The Syrian government blamed the lack of protective equipment as well as the security situation but the OPCW says it has handed over the necessary equipment. [1] Under a new timetable Syria has pledged to remove all chemical weapons by 13th April, but by the end of March had only removed just over half. [2] If Syria continues to fail to meet deadlines there have to be consequences, including abandoning the mission.\n\n[1] Blanford, Nicholas, ‘Months of stalling preceded Syria’s latest chemical weapons handover’, CS Monitor, 4 March 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0304/Months-of-stalling-preceded-Syria-s-latest-chemical-weapons-handover\n\n[2] AlJazeera, 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/watchdog-half-syria-chemicals-removed-2014327235384570.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea6b564ce2b0762a37e1ced034bd09f4",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat\n\nUnless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons. [1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end.\n\n[1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org, https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4f8ba23ad78cd29be811fe4a35cf152",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors A point on the path to peace\n\nSometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point. [1]\n\n[1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/negotiating-syrian-peace-moscow-geneva\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8eaffa2b0c70441662040ccffc080a",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict\n\nBefore the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to \"thwart U.S. aggression\". [1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option.\n\n[1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f54aa2cbe0039ffdc94e9a8a9b95631",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave\n\nThere were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena.\n\nIf the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases. [1]\n\nBecause of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.” [2]\n\n[1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24142-how-the-us-may-try-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons.html#.Umadffmkr_D\n\n[2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3144\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
18767309dbe90dfa6cf9f5639e0bf521
|
Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict
Before the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to "thwart U.S. aggression". [1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option.
[1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html
|
[
{
"docid": "646a38c52f9e2714fe6f536a4389b60f",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a9e75d7230af11971260f88c46fc430a",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’. [1]\n\n[1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/don-let-assad-sign-chemical-weapons-convention-syria-behalf-201392981058347857.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82fbb40121fa91e8b4c08135528e8035",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.\n\n[1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/09/12/would-the-syria-deal-be-a-coercive-diplomacy-success/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78edae3c58ff7a2721e67f53e0843f77",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Taking the weapons inspectors out of Syria need not be permanent, simply until there is peace and hopefully a new regime.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc791311a109f957bbdd379f9212ff97",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f771503604423483547036821d67a92c",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d21ce4805a75a7ad82e0cc69335b90a",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dadef8c7448134678d697f4814a759f8",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea6b564ce2b0762a37e1ced034bd09f4",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat\n\nUnless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons. [1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end.\n\n[1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org, https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4f8ba23ad78cd29be811fe4a35cf152",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors A point on the path to peace\n\nSometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point. [1]\n\n[1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/negotiating-syrian-peace-moscow-geneva\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f54aa2cbe0039ffdc94e9a8a9b95631",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave\n\nThere were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena.\n\nIf the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases. [1]\n\nBecause of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.” [2]\n\n[1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24142-how-the-us-may-try-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons.html#.Umadffmkr_D\n\n[2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3144\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff298f6a3d30c2641d8aa32081c4b449",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors What about biological weapons?\n\nChemical weapons are a horrifying weapon of mass destruction but they are by no means the only such horrific weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence says “We judge that some elements of Syria’s biological warfare programme might have advanced beyond the research and development stage and might be capable of limited agent production, based on the duration of its longstanding programme”. [1] Biological weapons could potentially be even more devastating than chemical weapons as they don’t necessarily affect just a localised area then disperse. As with other viruses they can be passed from person to person. In a country like Syria where the health services have broken down, and basically don’t exist in opposition areas the result could be huge numbers of deaths. It is inconsistent to disarm one type of weapon while leaving another type of WMD available to the Syrian regime.\n\n[1] AFP, ‘Syria ‘may be able to produce biological weapons’’, The Telegraph, 29 January 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10605512/Syria-may-be-able-to-produce-biological-weapons.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b38b898b13c179a03740de8342e76eb0",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Unlikely to make any progress\n\nWeapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.\n\n[1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10367242/Chemical-watchdog-chief-calls-for-Syria-ceasefire.html\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24566722\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db7e6998799a6ff79f471cb9422dc140",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Inspectors don’t solve the real problem\n\nThe biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013 [1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths. [2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution.\n\n[1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/group-says-syria-death-toll-at-115000/\n\n[2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/22/syria-attack/2683855/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5dabc6da7b5e2668da7e45f76a64d9e",
"text": "middle east politics defence warpeace house would have weapons inspectors Syria has not lived up to its commitments\n\nSyria is falling well behind on handing over its weapons. The deadliest chemicals were supposed to be removed by 1st January and the rest by 6th February. Neither happened. The Syrian government blamed the lack of protective equipment as well as the security situation but the OPCW says it has handed over the necessary equipment. [1] Under a new timetable Syria has pledged to remove all chemical weapons by 13th April, but by the end of March had only removed just over half. [2] If Syria continues to fail to meet deadlines there have to be consequences, including abandoning the mission.\n\n[1] Blanford, Nicholas, ‘Months of stalling preceded Syria’s latest chemical weapons handover’, CS Monitor, 4 March 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0304/Months-of-stalling-preceded-Syria-s-latest-chemical-weapons-handover\n\n[2] AlJazeera, 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/watchdog-half-syria-chemicals-removed-2014327235384570.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
98627c76403116d8bd0f3e07c433730a
|
Is a domestic matter for each individual
The vast majority of members of the government when visiting Yasukuni do so only in a private capacity and not as representatives of the government. As private individuals in their own lives anyone should be allowed to visits any such sites they wish. Minister Keiji Furuya argues “Paying homage to the war dead is a purely domestic matter and it’s not for other countries to criticize us or intervene in these matters” and Prime Minister Abe agrees that it should not be a diplomatic issue “As for when I might go to Yasukuni Shrine, or whether I will go or not, I will not say as this should not become a political or diplomatic issue”. [1] That there has been controversy and criticism even when it clearly is a domestic private matter, such as former Republic of China (Taiwan) President Lee Teng-hui visiting the grave of his elder brother in 2007 shows that critics, in this case the People’s Republic of China, are simply interested in finding an opportunity to attack the Japanese government. [2]
[1] Slodkowski, Antoni, ‘Cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine; Abe sends offering’, Japan Today, 15 August 2013, http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/dozens-of-politicians-expected-to-visit-yasukuni-shrine
[2] Fujioka, Chisa, ‘Taiwan’s Lee visits Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-japan-taiwan-lee-idUSSP1617120070607
|
[
{
"docid": "a111c3a85e0f2aed9f69eee5ec2eea5f",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c5b338f63177af80aae0fb9d811c2f7",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine If Japanese ministers wish to exercise their freedom of religion then there are plenty of other Shinto shrines that they could visit. Freedom of religion does not mean that politicians should be free to do as they wish knowing that it will insult others. The consequences of attempts to exercise freedom of religion in a volatile situation can be immense; Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount while leader of the opposition was one of the sparks for the Al Aqsa Intifada. [1]\n\n[1] ‘Al Aqsa Intifada timeline’, BBC News, 29 September 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3677206.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cffc698e037a4828231b5983e832ee7",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine If the Japanese politicians wish to honor their war dead there is another option for them; they could visit the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. The Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery houses the remains of the unknown Japanese soldiers who died overseas during the second world war. [1] This is both a broader cemetery in that it honors civilians who died in the war as well as soldiers and narrower as it is only those remains that are unidentified so it does not contain war criminals as Yasukuni does.\n\n[1] ‘Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery’, Ministry of Environment, http://www.env.go.jp/garden/chidorigafuchi/english/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "249666eb3c9bdc46f91f43841ccd5df6",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Those going to Yasukuni are not going to honour the class A war criminals but the more than two million others who have given their lives for Japan. It is unfortunate that there are war criminals enshrined in the cemetery but it is wrong to conclude that because they are there those visiting must be visiting the war criminals.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b2bb725e39a10f597f95ae24defcf22",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine The ruling in this case, as in others, was equivocal as it considered the problem to be that the visits by then Prime Minister Koizumi were in an official capacity. Koizumi put his name down as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi which the court considered made it official. [1] If the visits had been considered to be in a private capacity it would have been ok. Most cabinet ministers when visit emphasize that they go in as private citizens not as state ministers.\n\n[1] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/01/national/koizumis-yasukuni-trips-are-ruled-unconstitutional/#.Ug5IG5Kkrr4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3143572463e5d6566dc05934a1ded946",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine It is silly to argue that visiting a shrine makes a country look militaristic. Of course in most cases militaristic symbolism and militarism goes hand in hand but this is not the case here. Japan by its actions is not militaristic and no amount of visits to shrines will make it so. Japan is committed to a pacifistic constitution; Article 9 states “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” [1] Despite flashpoints with all its neighbours only 25% of the Japanese public want to increase Japan’s defense capabilities – although this is rising. [2] It is notable that he Yashukan itself accepts that its position on the war is a challenge to the mainstream Japanese opinion. [3]\n\n[1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html\n\n[2] Hayashi, Yuka, ‘As Tensions Rise, Pacifist Japan Marches Into a Military Revival’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2013, http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-279614/\n\n[3] Yoshida, Takashi, ‘Revising the Past, Complicating the Future: The Yushukan War Museum in Modern Japanese History’, Japan Focus, 2 December 2007, http://www.japanfocus.org/-takashi-yoshida/2594\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80c6f19513ade64558c4ffc17f0f9267",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine The visits to the Yasukuni Shrine are mostly taken by the PR China and the Koreas as an opportunity to complain and bring up old wounds. Simply stopping visiting Yasukuni is not going to solve the fundamental problems in relations between these nations – disputes over Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima and Pinnacle Islands/Senkaku/Diaoyu or provide the demanded apologies over Japan’s World War II conduct which in any case when offered tends to be rejected as not enough. [1]\n\nUltimately foreign relations between nations do not have to be linked to history; many countries put conflicting pasts behind them. If the other countries of North East Asia wanted good relations with Japan they would simply ignore these visits.\n\n[1] AP, ‘China dismisses Japanese apology for war aggression’, USA Today, 22 April 2005, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-22-japan-china_x.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c23c70cb6102ec77a5e287ec4aacd1cd",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Freedom of religion\n\nEveryone is entitled to freedom of religion and that applies to the Japanese as much as any other peoples. Yasukuni is a shrine in the Shinto religion – equivalent to a church - and was the center of state Shinto through the first half of the twentieth century. [1] Refusing to allow Japanese ministers to visit the shrine might therefore be said to be similar to barring British politicians from Westminster Abbey because there is a memorial stone to Oliver Cromwell there and as a result it could be interpreted as offensive to the Irish – Westminister Abbey’s page notably avoids mentioning the Wexford and Drogheda massacres that are remembered by the Irish. [2]\n\n[1] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035\n\n[2] ‘Oliver Cromwell and Family’, Westminster Abbey, http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/oliver-cromwell\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5794679fe71d7cc40d43bde82e993211",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Every nation should be allowed to respect its war dead\n\nEvery nation should be allowed to honor its war dead how it wishes. Wars are horrifying times and atrocities are almost always committed by all sides. Japan’s actions in its wars, particularly the Second World War were particularly brutal but this should not mean that Japans leaders should be banned from paying their respects to their ancestors who died fighting for their country. Most nations do this in one way or another. The difference is that Yasukuni has those who were convicted criminals enshrined but others also honor those who have committed acts that might be considered criminal. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong right at the heart of Beijing where there are still big celebrations to mark his birthday – unlike Shintoism in Japan Maoism is still very much part of the ideology of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Analects, ‘Mao’s birthday Party time, The Economist, 7 June 2013, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/06/maos-birthday\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03c876a2de3180d4373652c5133e804c",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Visits sour relations\n\nThe visits by senior Japanese politicians to Yasukuni are clearly a major issue in international politics that damages relations between Japan and its neighbours, particularly the People’s Republic of China and the two Koreas. Whenever ministers visit there is a round of recriminations this is often accompanies by cancelling discussions and visits as in april 2013 when South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se cancelled his visit. [1] South Korean President Park Geun-hye notes “If [Japan] does not have the courage to face its past and does not take an attitude of taking care of its partners’ pain, it will be difficult to establish trust to proceed toward the future.” [2] Diplomacy is about trust, Yasukuni undermines it.\n\nEven attempts to minimise damage by sending representatives, as done by Prime Minister Abe in August 2013, does not help repair relations with China responding “It does not matter in what form or using what identity Japanese political leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine, it is an intrinsic attempt to deny and beautify that history of invasion by the Japanese militarists”. [3] The only option is for all ministers to steer clear of the shrine and avoid sending offerings. It is not in Japan’s national interests for them to go.\n\n[1] ‘Seoul cancels summit over Yasukuni visits’, The Japan Times, 23 April 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/23/national/seoul-cancels-summit-over-yasukuni-visits/#.Ug4_3ZKkrr4\n\n[2] ‘S. Korea’s Park: Japanese politicians hampering citizens’ efforts to promote trust’, The Asahi Shimbum, 15 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201308150089\n\n[3] Mead, Walter Russell, ‘China & Korea Condemn Japan over Shrine Visit’, The American Interest, 15 August 2013, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/15/china-korea-condemn-japan-over-shrine-visit/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3dcc20fc2ae174c3efc2725a4a76916",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Separation of Church and State\n\nIn most modern democracies there is a strict separation of Church and State. This is the case in Japan just as in the United States of France. The constitution states “No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority” and bans the use of public money on any religious institution. [1] Lawmakers, and in particular cabinet ministers, visiting the Yasukuni shrine break this principle. [2] The constitutionality of visits has been challenged before and was ruled to be in violation of article 20 of the constitution (quoted above) by the Osaka High Court in September 2005. [3] Clearly no state should have senior members of the executive regularly breaking its own constitution.\n\n[1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html\n\n[2] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035\n\n[3] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/01/national/koizumis-yasukuni-trips-are-ruled-unconstitutional/#.Ug5IG5Kkrr4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "025bdf730c3d771ebe1ba31aa8bfd2a3",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Honouring war criminals is wrong\n\nIt is wrong to honour war criminals whose actions resulted in the deaths of thousands – or if you count the responsibility for the whole war in East Asia millions – of lives including the lives of Japanese citizens. The results were horrifying criminal acts. If Yasukuni is at all about remembrance then these individuals should not be enshrined and politicians certainly should not visit. Even Emperor Hirohito – Emperor during the Second World War – was opposed to their being enshrined. After the enshrinement of the war criminals in 1978 he stopped visiting the Yasukuni. He is quoted by Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita in his memoirs “At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba [the chief priest before the enshrinement] acted cautiously” However he questioned “What’s on the mind of Matsudaira’s son [the chief priest at the time of enshrinement], who is the current head priest? Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn’t know the parent’s heart. That’s why I have not visited the shrine since.” [1]\n\n[1] ‘Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals’, The Japan Times, 21 July 2006, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2006/07/21/news/hirohito-visits-to-yasukuni-stopped-over-war-criminals/#.Ugz2DZKkrr4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "853f229d9ec24156511007cc2807abda",
"text": "asia house would visit yasukuni shrine Makes Japan look militaristic\n\nMinisters and MPs visiting Yasukuni makes Japan look much more militaristic than it really is. There are two reasons for this. The first is the class A war criminals who should not be honoured as it appears to be honouring their militarism. The second is that Yasukuni itself has an overt political mission that essentially promotes such militarism. In the Yasukuni’s museum the Yashukan Japan’s wars are portrayed as wars of liberation from Western colonialism and fights against bandits and terrorists [1] – exactly the same justifications used in World War II itself. The museum, and its close ties with the shrine, display the unreconstructed view that Japan was the victim of the Second World War not the aggressor. When politicians visit the shrine they are showing their support for this interpretation. This could be solved by making the museum much more balanced; admitting that Japan started the wars they were involved in, information about the massacres such as at Nanjing, and about some of the other horrors perpetrated such as the ‘comfort women’ and unit 731.\n\n[1] Kingston, Jeffrey, ‘It’s time Japan acted to end the war over Yasukuni Shrine’, The Japan Times, 14 August 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/08/14/commentary/its-time-japan-acted-to-end-the-war-over-yasukuni-shrine/#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_ord=2\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6a0e393f969bdd42df3222fd128f2c7c
|
Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery
What is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.
(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter
(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/
|
[
{
"docid": "f912364874b77beccd7c4ce142ea0e8b",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cef7342ee33e12c231ab41453d80ba34",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c65b5d5f38bed178a0b1e9f7ad3beee",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df6dd0c767aae4c0b4d3a8a321aecb05",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd0adbc6a777579bf5a769f8d763d64c",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed1da5698123fe59c553613b9fef00c7",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c8cbd5cdc6f99fadb0dedb008ccb02f",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d11f11366a9c279683c060b65029f191",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5c40795e46883d2b83bae17c3d9a387",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c84b801ffe85fb8ab35524e90960090",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5112d5a13762d7b952e26cf4f561cc25",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980ed1871958bf0322677593445c94bb",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3104b9b911401c82fafdda77682f22b0",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f859eff855804fa3a8087b7a04bb748",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6f441e7872a4e0071cd3c88d3027161",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7dea5def64572be86c70921afef406b",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d8dce2d58a90b61cf125002544ca175",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7353af363da6f7f23ab3d5ebf0873b15
|
The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy
The EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.
(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4
|
[
{
"docid": "4c65b5d5f38bed178a0b1e9f7ad3beee",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cef7342ee33e12c231ab41453d80ba34",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f912364874b77beccd7c4ce142ea0e8b",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df6dd0c767aae4c0b4d3a8a321aecb05",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd0adbc6a777579bf5a769f8d763d64c",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed1da5698123fe59c553613b9fef00c7",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c8cbd5cdc6f99fadb0dedb008ccb02f",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d11f11366a9c279683c060b65029f191",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5c40795e46883d2b83bae17c3d9a387",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c84b801ffe85fb8ab35524e90960090",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5112d5a13762d7b952e26cf4f561cc25",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25af4b2d06982584a2e113d4ab929884",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980ed1871958bf0322677593445c94bb",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f859eff855804fa3a8087b7a04bb748",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6f441e7872a4e0071cd3c88d3027161",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7dea5def64572be86c70921afef406b",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d8dce2d58a90b61cf125002544ca175",
"text": "ne crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c7f8f8f84488b3a230045327f3d4fa72
|
North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers
North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.
It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]
[1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20690762
[2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17399847
|
[
{
"docid": "efe011a2d1d9fb5dfa71c351ad2c65c8",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions.\n\n[1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/23/weep_not_for_kim_jong_il\n\n[2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/\n\n[3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/02/north-korea-mcdevitt\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6e4e78a3cf01e337780f056d7039ccd",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China is investing heavily in North Korea, for example creating a port at Rason to serve Manchuria. [1] When the Korean question is resolved it will be through the collapse of the regime, something that is as likely to come about through ignoring it as engaging with it.\n\n[1] Bloomberg News, ‘North Korea Investment Zone Promoted to Chinese as Next Shenzhen’, Bloomberg, 13 September 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/north-korea-investment-zone-promoted-to-chinese-as-next-shenzhen.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db4ce46e3f15638f824d6863a94b7dec",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations While the United Nations is about creating peace that does not mean that it needs to keep trying the same failed formula. It is clear that multilateral discussions and sanctions have not succeeded in creating positive change in relation to North Korea. Trying new tactics does not mean giving up on the goal of international peace and security.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9e35fa238f5761918739a608dbab0b1",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Negotiations to defuse the cause of the immediate tension, and sanctions to encourage North Korea to the negotiating table are sensible, proportionate responses to North Korean actions. It is difficult to see how sanctions can be seen as encouraging even if those sanctions are then eased when North Korea climbs down.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af6ebd9164bf362868c346b350b6a403",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace treaty should the USA not take that when it is in the US national interest? [1]\n\n[1] DiFilippo, Anthony, ‘Time for North Korea Peace Treaty’, The Diplomat, 11 April 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/04/11/time-for-north-korea-peace-treaty/3/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb0e42a6da01ade6869699c7dcc417e7",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in particular has to be willing to engage with North Korea in order to present a united front with its South Korean ally.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70b15e7450a20faf91e8181c5a153ed8",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored\n\nEven if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore.\n\nIt is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control.\n\n[1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/pdf/RememberBloodyFrenzyRwanda.pdf\n\n[2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71fb96cfb2da5abb2666bf9e87483b81",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation\n\nWhile the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the withdrawal of support that was given by the USSR in the early 1990s but it did not happen. The regime will likely be able to hang on in the status quo situation pretty much indefinitely.\n\nThere is also no reason to believe that the provocations may not become bigger should smaller provocations be ignored. While North Korea can attract the world’s attention with a missile test launch it is likely to keep doing such small and relatively harmless actions. Should such actions fail the regime may resort to bigger incidents such as the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010 which resulted in 46 deaths which may have been an attempt at coercive diplomacy against a regime that was unwilling to engage in negotiations. [1]\n\n[1] Cha, Victor, ‘The Sinking of the Cheonan’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 22 April 2010, http://csis.org/publication/sinking-cheonan\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bad97b9c616ad601f9a0ea276fa1f040",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Providing attention simply encourages the regime\n\nNorth Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round. [1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour.\n\n[1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/19/how_to_free_north_korea\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c22cc2993fe415f9949caa33de4ebcc",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer\n\nThe responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather than the South. In 2010 the North Korean foreign ministry proposed that \"If confidence is to be built between [North Korea] and the US, it is essential to conclude a peace treaty for terminating the state of war, a root cause of the hostile relations, to begin with\". [1] The North wants a peace treaty with the US so as to drive a wedge between the USA and South Korea to prevent US support for the South in the event of war. [2] Ignoring such efforts at negotiating with the USA without South Korea in the room, and indeed all advances and provocations would force the North to accept that it has to negotiate with the south or with no one. Ignoring North Korean actions and reducing the number of allies negotiating while maintaining security guarantees prevents any chance of the North dividing the USA and South Korea.\n\n[1] Walker, Peter, ‘North Korea calls for peace treaty with US’, guardian.co.uk, 11 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/north-korea-peace-treaty-us-nuclear-talks\n\n[2] Cheon, Seongwhun, ‘Negotiating with South Korea and the I.S.: North Korea’s Strategy and Objectives’, International Journal for Korean Studies, Vol XVI No 1, Spring 2012, http://www.icks.org/publication/pdf/2012-SPRING-SUMMER/7.pdf p.153\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56fca47f8ca593110c797efee2363073",
"text": "asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations South Korea can handle the situation itself\n\nThe two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger. [1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.” [2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own.\n\n[1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2011/01/123_79235.html\n\n[2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9b9a599bdf0be0813f3e4000a7e467c4
|
Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all
A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14)
A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13)
A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.
|
[
{
"docid": "f0a98188fe4165a9ba467c1c5a48dd51",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state The most just outcome is that which best secures peace. Both sides will be compelled to make certain concessions, and some inequalities and discrepancies between the two new states are unavoidable. However, on balance the benefits of peace and security for both peoples will outweigh the harms of any concessions or inequalities, so long as both peoples receive a state of their own in which they can control their own destinies, which is the only way to ensure peace.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e93c3568cae9733e2bad4fd04f988ea9",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: “Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.”(1)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a31290c16f991fe16e938aabf0cf3174",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13)\n\nIn any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d63288b4b7623a67657535d38f1b5181",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d55953701e118b56a6eec94dc8883eb",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82d0418991b7e2a3e83e75a69c8d1b5b",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c86040e70340dfa4875c3085ec440051",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution\n\nA million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12)\n\nThe ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10)\n\nForcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8b69d02ced479f3df15e0c0af163e2",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state Only a one-state solution can end the conflict\n\nIt was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5)\n\nA two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11)\n\nSimilarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f4ff160db65d180ba757cbc8e29d41",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish\n\nAs described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers.\n\nFrom Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome.\n\nOnly a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7b5737586841ed083c2e841a594a6e8",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides\n\nA two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians.\n\nWhile cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1)\n\nMoreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e05208596e0f0fda60354adf6b73602",
"text": "middle east house believes conflict between israel and palestine two state A two-state solution is best for peace\n\nPalestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.\n\nIsraeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1)\n\nThis stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2)\n\nPope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3)\n\nEven Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own.\n\nAs Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.