Political Theory

In a democratic society, the concept (and reality) of 'majority rule and minority rights' is vitally important for a number of reasons. On the one hand, it represents a commitment to fairness and functionality alike, with the will of the majority given the space and power it deserves in order to be acted upon. On the other hand, and as a vital complement, it also recognizes the danger of oppression of minority groups by the democratic majority; thus, it seeks to create appropriate space for minorities of any kind to continue to flourish despite (or even because of) their differences with the majority.

US President Harry S. Truman can be criticized for allowing the USSR to dominate Eastern Europe following WW 2. He dis learn his lesson however, and decided on a containment policy to decrease the threat of an expanding communist threat.

He showed that by his actions in the Korean War. He forced North Korea to retreat back to its original border with South Korea. On the other hand, he failed to use the US monopoly of nuclear weapons to force Stalin into giving Eastern Europe its freedom.

Hitler began to rule Germany and almost all the countrys in Europe and any person who was different from him would be killed,sent to a work or death camp,have public humiliation,stay in a ghetto,and who knows what else

The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) is often cited as a major influence on the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. However, his writing also reflects themes of other scholars, notably Rousseau and Montesquieu.

In today's terms yes. But back then, the notion that every male citizen could vote was revolutionary.

The worst idea ever. In a one party system of government the people would only have one party to choose from. Say like if there were no republicans and only democrats ran for office, that would be a one party system.

Karl Marx did not say the "middle class" oppressed any group. Marx said the "bourgeoisie" (owners and controllers of the means of production) oppressed the "proletariat" (wage employees who own only the right to sell their own labors). The term "middle class" as we know it today was not a Marxian term.

The bourgeoisie, however, did not rule any nation . This class had rulers that were sympathetic to capitalism.

The ruling classes were both ultra-rich capitalists and the aristocracy ( such as the Romanovs in Russia).

For Marx (and Lenin) the "haves" were those who controlled the societal mode of material production, and also the societal modes of symbolic production. The "have-not's" were those who were dependent upon those controlling, particularly, the material mode of production. This is all very simply operationalized in their concept of "Social Relations to Production." Social class from a Marxist perspective (as opposed to a Weberian perspective) is defined by one's relationship to the predominate means of production. Either you are in a "controlling' relationship (bourgeois - owners) or an exploitative relationship (proletariat - workers.) - So from this view, Peyton Manning or Denzel Washington are essentially workers - so is not always about money or prestige. The Weberain critique of Marx's two tier class system brings into the discourse of social class prestige (social honor) and consumptive capacity (financial resources) and also suggests that a middle class of technocrats and bureaucrats have succeeded in becoming less dependent on the owners (than workers are) because they truly control the "knowledge" of the day to day operations of most aspects of our predominant (hegemonic) mode of production. Antoine Gramsci comes back (followed by many other brilliant thinkers,such as Noam Comskey) arguing that yes their is a measure of "control" in a tertiary relations to production that Marx did not identify, namely Weber's technocrats/bureaucrats, but that such control is heavily influenced by the "have's" control over society's mode of symbolic production - a cultural hegemony that espouses values, beliefs and normative expectation that serve the interests of the haves over the middle and lower classes - Chomskey's "manufacturing of consent" - Steven Luke's/John Gaventa's "third face of power." - manipulation of the basic collective symbols and myths of society that underlay and reinforce hegemonic cultural ideologies (Marx's Superstructure.)

the internet allows citizens to blog about issues, and generally monitor the actions and policies of government officials

Mussolini's ideas of fascism centered around authoritarian nationalism, emphasizing the supremacy of the state over individual interests and the need for a strong, centralized government. He promoted the concept of a totalitarian regime where the state controls various aspects of life, including the economy and culture, to achieve national unity and strength. Additionally, Mussolini advocated for militarism and imperial expansion, believing that a powerful nation must assert itself on the global stage. His vision also included the suppression of political dissent and the promotion of a collective identity based on national pride and cohesion.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.

india is a democratic republic or you can say republic democracy.in democracy a government is made by majority that means minority has little power compared to majority. In republic first representatives are set which are chosen by people. Minority and majority all have their own representatives.which then forms goverment. Minority cannot be ignored in republic as they are also the part of goverment. In india we got both. A government of majority and representatives(as MP and MLA) so india has a well balanced mixture of republic and democratic rules. That is why india is a republic democratic country. India is also called as THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA.

The largest US currency in circulation for the past 55+ years is the $ 100 bill. Each piece of US currency weighs about a gram and there are 454 grams in a pound. Thus, each pound would amount to $ 45,400.

If one takes $ 700 billion and divides by $ 45,400 the answer would be approximately 15,418,500 pounds.

Nigeria as of August 2013 is a Federal Presidential Republic, but it can't really be called a true democracy. Power often changes hand and milltry coups are quite common, so the power is unpredictable.You usually its army power ,as the ruler.

Democracy as we know it IS "a government that is run by each and every persons own vote". The problem with Democracy is that it is tyranny of the majority over the minority. The U.S. Government was set up as a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy, so that even the minority has a voice, and so the Majority doesn't rule over the Minority. - Pat Riot

The best way for me to answer this would say to except people for who they are, and what they say as being important, Even when you may not agree with them. Being Democratic is to me seeing the other before we see ourselves!

No, the US has a representative democracy.

The Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, established Russia as a socialist state in 1917 after the revolution of that year. Communism derived from the socialist aspect of the party's policies and actions.

the department of the treasury was created in 1789 because of the great depression crisis

In the 1690s Locke expressed the idea that people are born with certain natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke wrote that people form governments to protect those rights, and that a government interfering with those rights could rightfully be overthrown. Locke, in general favored a limited government.

I a woman t I come and sex me

Nationalism is a product of modern thought (as opposed to medieval thought). Since modernity only reached the Arab World when it was colonized by Western Powers in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Nationalism only began there in those periods.