Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.
Describe a specific situation in which a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.
___
In the last few years, people have expressed a general high disapproval of national politicians. They reserve terms, such as "elite," for politicians who are seemingly out of touch with the needs of the people. Namely, the "elite" label has mainly been use to denigrate wealthy politicians educated at prestigious institutions. It implies that these politicians cannot fairly represent ordinary people because they do not understand their common struggles. Parties have juxtaposed "elite" politicians with their alternative candidates, including the so-called soccer moms and regular Joe's who could better understand the people. Indeed, the electorate should not judge candidates solely on their abundance or lack of wealth. In order to bring in the most qualified people , the electorate should vote for candidates based on the whole context, including previous accomplishments and historical records.
Some have argued that in order to represent his constituents fairly, a politician should ideally share demographic characteristics with the people. This may include a background based on income, ethnic background, etc. For example, some believe that higher-income candidates will not understand the daily struggles of ordinary people and can only possibly protect the wealthy and big business. They maintain that the soccer moms and regular Joe's can offer new perspectives to Washington due to their personal experience as "regular people."
Indeed, there is merit in encouraging diversity in politics, the workplace and all institutions due to the new perspectives introduced into the environment. However, judging a person's fitness for office should not be solely based on few superficial characteristics, such as amount of wealth and one's gender or race. The voter should look beyond these labels of "elite" and "regular Joe" and instead evaluate what exactly they have accomplished in the past. For instance, have they proven success in their previous work running a company or serving the public interest? During the campaign trail, have they emphasized issues that click with the middle class? Indeed, there are different factors to consider in choosing the candidate that will best represent the people and that choice should not be made based on one's wealth.
Others argue that wealthy people cannot be fair representatives due to the fact that they bought their way into office. Granted, candidates need a lot of money to run for office and be elected. Those who can finance their own campaigns on an independent basis arguably do not have as much incentive to reach out to the people and businesses--therefore, not being sufficiently touch with voter's needs. On the other hand, a wealthy candidate could argue that he is not beholden to special interests and big business because of the fact that he did not have to solicit funds in the campaign. Indeed, a voter must not assume that wealthy candidates have not made efforts to reach out to voters and understand their needs.
Lack or abundance of wealth per se should not determine whether a candidate can fairly represent the people as a politician. Sharing demographic qualities with constituents may be a good indicator of the politician's understanding of the people's needs. However, voters should not equate superficial factors, such as amount of wealth, ethnic and gender background with competence and the ability to fairly represent the people. Candidates should be evaluated holistically based on previous accomplishments and projects.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Human Behavior as Guided Primarily by Self-Interest
Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.
Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.
___
As humans, we are essentially animals at the core with most of our behavior driven by instincts---namely, the desire to survive and to propagate our genes. Consciously and subconsciously, our pursuits in life and daily behavior are formed around these instincts. However, some humans have developed beyond their instinctual tendencies and act in ways that seemingly are against their own self-interest and in the interest of others. These may be seen in certain altruistic deeds. Others also act against their own self-interest as a result of alteration in their brain chemistry due to drugs or mental illness. However, all humans, regardless of how developed they are on a civilized scale, are essentially driven by self-interest during the majority of their lifetime.
The instinct to survive drives us as humans to fulfill our basic needs of food, water, clothes and shelter. In poorer countries, people's daily activities are centered around survival and feeding their families. More developed nations, such as the United States, do not struggle with meeting basic ends and the people may pursue intellectual and recreational activities on a more frequent level. Of course, there still exists the self-interest of surviving but more in a level of increasing pleasure and diminishing hardship. All humans also are wired to propagate their genes and the mechanism of sex as a pleasurable activity helps facilitate this instinctual goal. The desire to reproduce, however, has been stifled in recent decades due to practicality concerns related to financial burdens of child care. However, family planning also furthers one's self interest due to the desire to have enough resources to ensure the survival of existing dependents.
At first glance, it may seem that mothers go against self-interest by being willing to give up their lives for their children's survival. However, this "sacrifice" really acts in the interest of the mother. Her ability to save her children would increase the chances of her genes surviving for more generations to come. Also, any type of altruistic deed performed by a person for his family members is a manifestation of self interest.
A person may help another through altruistic deeds and seemingly get "nothing" back in return. This might be perceived as acting against one's self interest. In reality, however, most people perform altruistic acts for reasons that can be traced back to self interest--i.e., the desire to raise one's own self esteem, look good in front of other people, expect payment in-kind for future purposes, receive a tax break, etc.
Indeed, some people have performed altruistic acts against their own instinctual desire to survive. This is seen in instances where a person gives up his life in saving a complete stranger. In this situation, the Samaritan is not acting in a professional capacity (e.g., fireman, body guard) and does not expect anything in return for his generous act. These instances are extremely rare as most people wish to ensure their own survival when they observe a stranger in a life-threatening situation.
People also act against their self interest due to abnormalities in their brain chemistry. For example, a person suffering from severe depression may commit suicide. Objectively speaking, the act of suicide goes against our animal instincts. However, from the point of view of the sick person, killing one's self is in his interest of ending suffering. Furthermore, self-destructive behaviors, such as drug abuse and other addictions, also run against self interest. The alteration in their brains prevents them from acting as a normal person who would ensure his own survival.
There are, indeed, a few examples of Samaritans acting against their own self-interest. However, humans, in general, center their activities and behavior around their self interest of survival. This does not only mean the survival of their own physical bodies but also the successful propagation of their genes.
Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.
___
As humans, we are essentially animals at the core with most of our behavior driven by instincts---namely, the desire to survive and to propagate our genes. Consciously and subconsciously, our pursuits in life and daily behavior are formed around these instincts. However, some humans have developed beyond their instinctual tendencies and act in ways that seemingly are against their own self-interest and in the interest of others. These may be seen in certain altruistic deeds. Others also act against their own self-interest as a result of alteration in their brain chemistry due to drugs or mental illness. However, all humans, regardless of how developed they are on a civilized scale, are essentially driven by self-interest during the majority of their lifetime.
The instinct to survive drives us as humans to fulfill our basic needs of food, water, clothes and shelter. In poorer countries, people's daily activities are centered around survival and feeding their families. More developed nations, such as the United States, do not struggle with meeting basic ends and the people may pursue intellectual and recreational activities on a more frequent level. Of course, there still exists the self-interest of surviving but more in a level of increasing pleasure and diminishing hardship. All humans also are wired to propagate their genes and the mechanism of sex as a pleasurable activity helps facilitate this instinctual goal. The desire to reproduce, however, has been stifled in recent decades due to practicality concerns related to financial burdens of child care. However, family planning also furthers one's self interest due to the desire to have enough resources to ensure the survival of existing dependents.
At first glance, it may seem that mothers go against self-interest by being willing to give up their lives for their children's survival. However, this "sacrifice" really acts in the interest of the mother. Her ability to save her children would increase the chances of her genes surviving for more generations to come. Also, any type of altruistic deed performed by a person for his family members is a manifestation of self interest.
A person may help another through altruistic deeds and seemingly get "nothing" back in return. This might be perceived as acting against one's self interest. In reality, however, most people perform altruistic acts for reasons that can be traced back to self interest--i.e., the desire to raise one's own self esteem, look good in front of other people, expect payment in-kind for future purposes, receive a tax break, etc.
Indeed, some people have performed altruistic acts against their own instinctual desire to survive. This is seen in instances where a person gives up his life in saving a complete stranger. In this situation, the Samaritan is not acting in a professional capacity (e.g., fireman, body guard) and does not expect anything in return for his generous act. These instances are extremely rare as most people wish to ensure their own survival when they observe a stranger in a life-threatening situation.
People also act against their self interest due to abnormalities in their brain chemistry. For example, a person suffering from severe depression may commit suicide. Objectively speaking, the act of suicide goes against our animal instincts. However, from the point of view of the sick person, killing one's self is in his interest of ending suffering. Furthermore, self-destructive behaviors, such as drug abuse and other addictions, also run against self interest. The alteration in their brains prevents them from acting as a normal person who would ensure his own survival.
There are, indeed, a few examples of Samaritans acting against their own self-interest. However, humans, in general, center their activities and behavior around their self interest of survival. This does not only mean the survival of their own physical bodies but also the successful propagation of their genes.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Does a Country's Strength Increase in Proportion to its Freedoms?
A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.
Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.
___
A nation may qualify as "strong" when it demonstrates high economic stability, low crime, and leadership in innovation and technology. Nations that generally exhibit such factors allow its people to enjoy broad freedoms in all levels. The United States, currently seen as the world's strongest nation, bases its system on its Constitution---specifically the Bill of Rights which outline the various freedoms given to citizens. Without these freedoms, the United States would not have flourished during the late twentieth century. That is, freedom is an essential basis for economic and social growth in a nation.
In general, the freedom of speech, press and assembly allow people to freely express their thoughts (within certain limits) without government reprisal. The absence of fear encourages people to come up with new ideas and exchange information with each other. The plethora of information allows innovators and entrepreneurs to commercialize their protects and build new industries. Indeed, the economic growth resulting from the free flow of information helps strengthen a nation and its people.
Search for the freedom of religion drove the early Colonialist to separate themselves from the mother country, England. The ability to practice (or not practice) one's own religion allows people to think for themselves and not fear the government. Indeed, the ability to be true to oneself allows a greater trust and appreciation for a nation---especially, when juxtaposing a "free" system to those of other countries where people are stoned for expressing "sacrilegious" thoughts.
More controversially, some may argue that greater economic freedom results in a nation with higher quality of living standards. Economic freedom is generally thought to be system where citizens can pursue economic activity without interference from the government. This interference may take the form of tariffs imposed on certain imported goods to protect the domestic market. Some believe that "protectionism" stifles innovation by eliminating competitive pressures. It follows that the lack of innovation results in a weaker nation.
Broad freedoms for citizens can only make a country stronger in terms of greater economic output, lower crime and more innovation. Sometimes, though, a country may not become stronger in proportion to its freedoms. Certain freedoms are abused and influence people in an adverse way. This may include freedom to spread ideas that corrupt the minds of young people and lead them in the wrong direction. That is why it is essential to teach people how to distinguish good and bad information and to also promote proper parenting. However, the presence and free flow of bad information are not outweighed by the benefits of having a broad freedoms. More people will gain from having broad access to information and more opportunities to build innovative industries that strengthen a nation.
Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.
___
A nation may qualify as "strong" when it demonstrates high economic stability, low crime, and leadership in innovation and technology. Nations that generally exhibit such factors allow its people to enjoy broad freedoms in all levels. The United States, currently seen as the world's strongest nation, bases its system on its Constitution---specifically the Bill of Rights which outline the various freedoms given to citizens. Without these freedoms, the United States would not have flourished during the late twentieth century. That is, freedom is an essential basis for economic and social growth in a nation.
In general, the freedom of speech, press and assembly allow people to freely express their thoughts (within certain limits) without government reprisal. The absence of fear encourages people to come up with new ideas and exchange information with each other. The plethora of information allows innovators and entrepreneurs to commercialize their protects and build new industries. Indeed, the economic growth resulting from the free flow of information helps strengthen a nation and its people.
Search for the freedom of religion drove the early Colonialist to separate themselves from the mother country, England. The ability to practice (or not practice) one's own religion allows people to think for themselves and not fear the government. Indeed, the ability to be true to oneself allows a greater trust and appreciation for a nation---especially, when juxtaposing a "free" system to those of other countries where people are stoned for expressing "sacrilegious" thoughts.
More controversially, some may argue that greater economic freedom results in a nation with higher quality of living standards. Economic freedom is generally thought to be system where citizens can pursue economic activity without interference from the government. This interference may take the form of tariffs imposed on certain imported goods to protect the domestic market. Some believe that "protectionism" stifles innovation by eliminating competitive pressures. It follows that the lack of innovation results in a weaker nation.
Broad freedoms for citizens can only make a country stronger in terms of greater economic output, lower crime and more innovation. Sometimes, though, a country may not become stronger in proportion to its freedoms. Certain freedoms are abused and influence people in an adverse way. This may include freedom to spread ideas that corrupt the minds of young people and lead them in the wrong direction. That is why it is essential to teach people how to distinguish good and bad information and to also promote proper parenting. However, the presence and free flow of bad information are not outweighed by the benefits of having a broad freedoms. More people will gain from having broad access to information and more opportunities to build innovative industries that strengthen a nation.
Leadership Involves Speaking out when Others Might Keep Silent
Leadership involves speaking out when others might keep silent.
Describe a specific situation in which leadership might involve keeping silent. Discuss what you think determines whether a leader should speak out or keep silent.
___
As a way to preserve the status quo, one should just sit back and remain silent. However, when a situation demands change, someone needs to take the lead and speak up to address problems. People who are delegated to voice their concerns are more likely fit to be leaders of an organization. Leaders must inherently have the ability to think about the need for change and communicate their strategy to others in the group in an effective manner. While competent leaders have the tendency to speak up about issues that affect their organization, at times it is prudent to stand back and keep silent.
Leaders are either chosen by the people or may make their way to the helm of an organization through their own will or self-assertion. In democratic organizations, leaders are expected to represent their constituents. That is, they serve as a voice of and for the people--promoting their concerns and acting as agents of needed change. In representing the people, leaders need to be fully aware of the issues that most affect their constituents and must be able to effectively communicate their plan of action in a public forum. Leaders are able to speak up in a way that motivates people to support their plans for action.
Effective leaders not only speak up for their constituents in general. They are able to recognize the concerns of minorities and vulnerable populations. When they are aware of an unjust situation, these leaders speak up as a way to draw attention to the issue and mobilize the rest of the constituents to support their call for change. Sometimes it is difficult for leaders to address the needs of a minority in an effort to be re-elected. But living in an era promoting social justice, leaders must often demonstrate sensitivity to minorities and those who are underrepresented in the system.
Leaders may find themselves in situations when it is best to not speak out. This may be seen when they do not want to associate themselves with a certain cause or they want to avoid the spotlight. Moderate leaders, in particular, who do not identify strongly with issues that divide party lines (e.g., gay marriage, abortion) choose not to speak up as a way to maintain neutrality. Furthermore, effective leaders do not always monopolize the podium. They realize the value in nurturing leaders among their constituents and allowing others to speak up as well.
Granted, any person can speak up about an issue. However, not everyone has a sense when it is best to speak up or to keep silent. Certain people, furthermore, can communicate their thoughts more effectively than others. These people tend to be leaders who people are drawn to and can identify with.
Describe a specific situation in which leadership might involve keeping silent. Discuss what you think determines whether a leader should speak out or keep silent.
___
As a way to preserve the status quo, one should just sit back and remain silent. However, when a situation demands change, someone needs to take the lead and speak up to address problems. People who are delegated to voice their concerns are more likely fit to be leaders of an organization. Leaders must inherently have the ability to think about the need for change and communicate their strategy to others in the group in an effective manner. While competent leaders have the tendency to speak up about issues that affect their organization, at times it is prudent to stand back and keep silent.
Leaders are either chosen by the people or may make their way to the helm of an organization through their own will or self-assertion. In democratic organizations, leaders are expected to represent their constituents. That is, they serve as a voice of and for the people--promoting their concerns and acting as agents of needed change. In representing the people, leaders need to be fully aware of the issues that most affect their constituents and must be able to effectively communicate their plan of action in a public forum. Leaders are able to speak up in a way that motivates people to support their plans for action.
Effective leaders not only speak up for their constituents in general. They are able to recognize the concerns of minorities and vulnerable populations. When they are aware of an unjust situation, these leaders speak up as a way to draw attention to the issue and mobilize the rest of the constituents to support their call for change. Sometimes it is difficult for leaders to address the needs of a minority in an effort to be re-elected. But living in an era promoting social justice, leaders must often demonstrate sensitivity to minorities and those who are underrepresented in the system.
Leaders may find themselves in situations when it is best to not speak out. This may be seen when they do not want to associate themselves with a certain cause or they want to avoid the spotlight. Moderate leaders, in particular, who do not identify strongly with issues that divide party lines (e.g., gay marriage, abortion) choose not to speak up as a way to maintain neutrality. Furthermore, effective leaders do not always monopolize the podium. They realize the value in nurturing leaders among their constituents and allowing others to speak up as well.
Granted, any person can speak up about an issue. However, not everyone has a sense when it is best to speak up or to keep silent. Certain people, furthermore, can communicate their thoughts more effectively than others. These people tend to be leaders who people are drawn to and can identify with.
Can Good Intentions Justify Bad Actions in Politics?
In politics, good intentions cannot justify bad actions.
Describe a specific situation in which good intentions in politics might justify a bad action. Discuss what you think determines whether or not good intentions in politics can justify bad actions.
___
Politics is the process in which a group of people make, preserve and amend the laws under which they live. Politics exist in various spheres of life from government to the work place. Politicians (or those instituting laws) make decisions under different rationales and contexts. In the case of government, politicians make laws ideally with the interest of the greater good for their constituents and country. However good their intentions are, resulting bad actions cannot be justified.
The United States, in particular, has taken on the mission of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. That is the ostensible rationale for meddling into affairs of other countries. Granted, there are always accompanying reasons, including financial and security incentives. However, these other reasons seem quite self-serving and not as palatable to the ears of American people. In general, the government needs the moral support of the American people in order to intervene in other countries and potentially sacrifice young soldiers. The intention of spreading democracy and freedoms to those abroad per se sounds like a worthy cause.
However, several interventions in the name of democracy have ended up as bad "actions." The most recent one, the Iraq War, turned out to be a failure. The United States intervened with the intention of wiping out the threat of weapons of mass destruction and establishing a democratic government. Although the United States toppled the dictator and enemy, Sadaam Hussein, thousands of civilians and US soldiers have lost their lives. In the end, the United States never found the WMDs and the country continue struggles to help its citizens meet basic needs.
In the domestic front, the United States has been grappling with growing deficit and sluggish economy. Politicians want to keep showing their constituents that they are representing their interests by protecting entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. These programs are designed to be used as a crutch for people in case of hard times or old age. These programs are, indeed, valuable for taking care of the most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not sustainable as they stand---by adding tremendously to the deficit and inability of the United States to maintain a functioning government. Good intentions are behind funding entitlement programs but they do not justify its full funding.
While good intentions usually never justify bad actions, there are, of course, instances where the bad actions end up being the "right" decision in politics. For example, with the intention of overcoming partisan deadlock, politicians will compromise with the other side. This has been seen recently in the effort to balance the budget for the end of this fiscal year. Until the very last minute, the country was in danger of undergoing a federal shutdown. In order to keep the government up and running, politicians compromised and came up with a deal. Depending on one's point of view, the final budget was a "bad" action in that it fell short of reducing the deficit OR it cut several essential programs. While the action may be perceived as "bad," the intent to keep the government running justifies the budget agreement.
Indeed, politics is a game where tough decisions must be made. Politicians might publicly justify these decisions with worthy intentions. However, those intentions are often subjective and sometimes politicians do not reveal the full extent of their reasons. Bad actions usually cannot be justified by good intentions. However, in the interest of keeping the government running and moving things forward, one may be able to justify bad actions.
Describe a specific situation in which good intentions in politics might justify a bad action. Discuss what you think determines whether or not good intentions in politics can justify bad actions.
___
Politics is the process in which a group of people make, preserve and amend the laws under which they live. Politics exist in various spheres of life from government to the work place. Politicians (or those instituting laws) make decisions under different rationales and contexts. In the case of government, politicians make laws ideally with the interest of the greater good for their constituents and country. However good their intentions are, resulting bad actions cannot be justified.
The United States, in particular, has taken on the mission of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. That is the ostensible rationale for meddling into affairs of other countries. Granted, there are always accompanying reasons, including financial and security incentives. However, these other reasons seem quite self-serving and not as palatable to the ears of American people. In general, the government needs the moral support of the American people in order to intervene in other countries and potentially sacrifice young soldiers. The intention of spreading democracy and freedoms to those abroad per se sounds like a worthy cause.
However, several interventions in the name of democracy have ended up as bad "actions." The most recent one, the Iraq War, turned out to be a failure. The United States intervened with the intention of wiping out the threat of weapons of mass destruction and establishing a democratic government. Although the United States toppled the dictator and enemy, Sadaam Hussein, thousands of civilians and US soldiers have lost their lives. In the end, the United States never found the WMDs and the country continue struggles to help its citizens meet basic needs.
In the domestic front, the United States has been grappling with growing deficit and sluggish economy. Politicians want to keep showing their constituents that they are representing their interests by protecting entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. These programs are designed to be used as a crutch for people in case of hard times or old age. These programs are, indeed, valuable for taking care of the most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not sustainable as they stand---by adding tremendously to the deficit and inability of the United States to maintain a functioning government. Good intentions are behind funding entitlement programs but they do not justify its full funding.
While good intentions usually never justify bad actions, there are, of course, instances where the bad actions end up being the "right" decision in politics. For example, with the intention of overcoming partisan deadlock, politicians will compromise with the other side. This has been seen recently in the effort to balance the budget for the end of this fiscal year. Until the very last minute, the country was in danger of undergoing a federal shutdown. In order to keep the government up and running, politicians compromised and came up with a deal. Depending on one's point of view, the final budget was a "bad" action in that it fell short of reducing the deficit OR it cut several essential programs. While the action may be perceived as "bad," the intent to keep the government running justifies the budget agreement.
Indeed, politics is a game where tough decisions must be made. Politicians might publicly justify these decisions with worthy intentions. However, those intentions are often subjective and sometimes politicians do not reveal the full extent of their reasons. Bad actions usually cannot be justified by good intentions. However, in the interest of keeping the government running and moving things forward, one may be able to justify bad actions.
Should Freedom of Speech include Opinions Objectionable to the Majority of People
Freedom of speech should include acts or opinions that may be objectionable to the majority of people.
Describe a specific situation in which an act or opinion objectionable to the majority of the people should not be protected by the right to free speech. Discuss what you think determines when an objectionable act should be protected under freedom of speech.
___
The freedom of speech, as a cornerstone of American democracy, allows citizens the broad right to express thoughts and opinions without threat of government reprisal. In contrast to countries without this freedom, the United States prohibits the imprisonment of political critics and those expressing objectionable opinions. The freedom of speech encompasses not only verbal speech but nonverbal and symbolic speech, including among others, art, music, pornography, etc. While certain situations demand limits on this freedom, the right to express oneself should be kept as broad as possible in order to maintain an open society.
In general, the freedom of speech should include acts and opinions objectionable to the majority of people. Allowing discourse about controversial topics is a sign of a healthy, free society. The freedom to discuss objectionable ideas allows new modes of thought (whether harmful or helpful) to enter the American consciousness and challenge their traditional ideas. This may result in a more tolerant people that reserves judgment and allows people to argue their case in an open forum. Of course, people will have the freedom to agree or differ with those argument. These "objectionable opinions," in recent years, run the gamut from abortion to homosexual marriage. The ability to freely express different opinions on such topics allow the country as a whole to exchange ideas and make their own analyses.
Indeed, the Constitution places limits on the freedom of speech. These prohibitions include, among others, obscenity, sedition, fighting words and speech designed to incite an immediate breach of speech. The limited prohibitions on speech are mainly designed to maintain order in society and to protect the vulnerable members of society, including children and minorities. Granted, any act or opinion deemed objectionable by the majority of people may be argued successfully as part of the limited prohibitions on speech. That is why courts should be careful in penalizing people under these exceptions in order to preserve the integrity of our democracy. Charging people under the exceptions on a more frequent basis would lead our country to a path that stifles people from expressing their true opinions. This can be seen in countries, such as Iran and China, where political activists are thrown in prison or coerced to make false confessions on a regular basis.
The freedom of speech is one of the most important elements of a democracy. It allows people to openly disagree with government leaders and their actions. It, furthermore, allows people to debate in a public forum about controversial topics. Allowing the free exchange of information among people often leads to intelligent analyses about issues and perhaps better outcomes. Granted, harmful ideas may also enter the public consciousness. However, the ability for people to carry their own opinions and make individual analyses oftentimes will defeat those harmful ideas. Therefore, it is generally better to err on the side of allowing certain speech over suppressing it.
Describe a specific situation in which an act or opinion objectionable to the majority of the people should not be protected by the right to free speech. Discuss what you think determines when an objectionable act should be protected under freedom of speech.
___
The freedom of speech, as a cornerstone of American democracy, allows citizens the broad right to express thoughts and opinions without threat of government reprisal. In contrast to countries without this freedom, the United States prohibits the imprisonment of political critics and those expressing objectionable opinions. The freedom of speech encompasses not only verbal speech but nonverbal and symbolic speech, including among others, art, music, pornography, etc. While certain situations demand limits on this freedom, the right to express oneself should be kept as broad as possible in order to maintain an open society.
In general, the freedom of speech should include acts and opinions objectionable to the majority of people. Allowing discourse about controversial topics is a sign of a healthy, free society. The freedom to discuss objectionable ideas allows new modes of thought (whether harmful or helpful) to enter the American consciousness and challenge their traditional ideas. This may result in a more tolerant people that reserves judgment and allows people to argue their case in an open forum. Of course, people will have the freedom to agree or differ with those argument. These "objectionable opinions," in recent years, run the gamut from abortion to homosexual marriage. The ability to freely express different opinions on such topics allow the country as a whole to exchange ideas and make their own analyses.
Indeed, the Constitution places limits on the freedom of speech. These prohibitions include, among others, obscenity, sedition, fighting words and speech designed to incite an immediate breach of speech. The limited prohibitions on speech are mainly designed to maintain order in society and to protect the vulnerable members of society, including children and minorities. Granted, any act or opinion deemed objectionable by the majority of people may be argued successfully as part of the limited prohibitions on speech. That is why courts should be careful in penalizing people under these exceptions in order to preserve the integrity of our democracy. Charging people under the exceptions on a more frequent basis would lead our country to a path that stifles people from expressing their true opinions. This can be seen in countries, such as Iran and China, where political activists are thrown in prison or coerced to make false confessions on a regular basis.
The freedom of speech is one of the most important elements of a democracy. It allows people to openly disagree with government leaders and their actions. It, furthermore, allows people to debate in a public forum about controversial topics. Allowing the free exchange of information among people often leads to intelligent analyses about issues and perhaps better outcomes. Granted, harmful ideas may also enter the public consciousness. However, the ability for people to carry their own opinions and make individual analyses oftentimes will defeat those harmful ideas. Therefore, it is generally better to err on the side of allowing certain speech over suppressing it.
Effective Leaders Anticipate Future Problems
An effective leader must possess the ability not only to deal with current problems, but also to anticipate future ones.
Describe a specific situation in which a leader might be effective without anticipating future problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not it is necessary for a leader to anticipate future problems.
___
Effective leaders are essential in moving forward organizations in a successful manner. These organizations run the gamut from small and large businesses to states and nations. The different type of organizations require specialized set of skills; however, the basic qualities of an effective leader are uniform across all spectrums. Some characteristics include, among others, the ability to work well with people, motivate others to complete company goals, and perform effectively under pressure. One other characteristic--the ability to anticipate future problems---is also essential for leading an organization.
Addressing only current problems without looking at the wider picture may bring problems in the future. Therefore, it is essential for leaders to be able to view a particular situation in its context--which may include background, short term, as well as long term implications. For instance, a businessman attempts to push forward a product in the most cost-efficient way possible. He must decide on quality, costs, and other factors. Some may choose to market lower quality products or bypass environmental regulations with the goal of increasing profits. When leaders solely dwell on the profit as the bottom line, major problems could occur in the future. This has recently been exemplified by the BP oil spill which devastated the Gulf area o f the United States. Leaders tried to save money and decided to not take certain precautionary measures that may have averted the accident.
Good leaders do not only take into account profit incentives. They also think carefully about how their actions may effect workers, the greater community and future generations. Oftentimes, taking into account the well-being of others and factors such as the environment will help companies save money, as well as their reputations, in the long term. Furthermore, leaders of big companies choose to engage in philanthropic work as a way to balance their profit incentives. They show their communities that they like to give back some of the profits they earned and show that they are morally responsible citizens.
In most cases, organizations will be best served by leaders that take a long term view of a situation. They not only think about present problems but also anticipate future ones. However, it may take a lot of time, effort, and money to anticipate and plan for future problems. Leaders, therefore, need to show that they can first take care of immediate problems. For example, leaders of nations need to ensure that the basic needs of their people (alimentation and shelter) are taken care of before investing in the future. However, once immediate needs are addressed, leaders must form a framework for taking into account more long-term and future issues.
A mark of an effective leader includes the ability to anticipate and address future problems. Leaders with a broad vision and the ability to analyze a situation from all angles will help avert disasters and improve the well being of future generations. However, there are situations when resources are tied up and the leader must address crucial short-term needs. In this case, he need not anticipate future problems until he solves the present problems.
Describe a specific situation in which a leader might be effective without anticipating future problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not it is necessary for a leader to anticipate future problems.
___
Effective leaders are essential in moving forward organizations in a successful manner. These organizations run the gamut from small and large businesses to states and nations. The different type of organizations require specialized set of skills; however, the basic qualities of an effective leader are uniform across all spectrums. Some characteristics include, among others, the ability to work well with people, motivate others to complete company goals, and perform effectively under pressure. One other characteristic--the ability to anticipate future problems---is also essential for leading an organization.
Addressing only current problems without looking at the wider picture may bring problems in the future. Therefore, it is essential for leaders to be able to view a particular situation in its context--which may include background, short term, as well as long term implications. For instance, a businessman attempts to push forward a product in the most cost-efficient way possible. He must decide on quality, costs, and other factors. Some may choose to market lower quality products or bypass environmental regulations with the goal of increasing profits. When leaders solely dwell on the profit as the bottom line, major problems could occur in the future. This has recently been exemplified by the BP oil spill which devastated the Gulf area o f the United States. Leaders tried to save money and decided to not take certain precautionary measures that may have averted the accident.
Good leaders do not only take into account profit incentives. They also think carefully about how their actions may effect workers, the greater community and future generations. Oftentimes, taking into account the well-being of others and factors such as the environment will help companies save money, as well as their reputations, in the long term. Furthermore, leaders of big companies choose to engage in philanthropic work as a way to balance their profit incentives. They show their communities that they like to give back some of the profits they earned and show that they are morally responsible citizens.
In most cases, organizations will be best served by leaders that take a long term view of a situation. They not only think about present problems but also anticipate future ones. However, it may take a lot of time, effort, and money to anticipate and plan for future problems. Leaders, therefore, need to show that they can first take care of immediate problems. For example, leaders of nations need to ensure that the basic needs of their people (alimentation and shelter) are taken care of before investing in the future. However, once immediate needs are addressed, leaders must form a framework for taking into account more long-term and future issues.
A mark of an effective leader includes the ability to anticipate and address future problems. Leaders with a broad vision and the ability to analyze a situation from all angles will help avert disasters and improve the well being of future generations. However, there are situations when resources are tied up and the leader must address crucial short-term needs. In this case, he need not anticipate future problems until he solves the present problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)