Political Theory

No. A system based on Communism is the when everything is publicly owned. Everything is shared and distributed based on need. This destroys a class-based society and therefore equality for all. But some dictator always has to come and screw everything up.

Definitely not

now a days politics are under control of politicians. but, not political ethics .The reason behind this is the public are blindly believing in politicians after they are mesmerized by sweet speeches of politicians and voting them ignoring the people who are struggling for the welfare of public and public is neglecting the character of the persons who are contesting and giving their valuable votes in respect to their favorite party's contestants ,ignoring the well wishers of people who are contesting in the politics .some people are also voting for money and alcohol in some countries and racism plays a vital role in winning the elections

Capitalism will have difficulty functioning in a society that does not assure these rights for its citizens because of the less population in a country.

A direct democracy is where the citizens meet regularly in assembly and make the decisions, which are implemented by a council. Many of the Greek city-states adopted it.

The government allows some private ownership and management of important industries while maintaining complete political control over the people.

yes but only in a monarchical rule where power recides in only the ruling family

Usually it isn't.

Behind the outward show of efficiency, military systems are too inflexible to operate smoothly, and many highly sinister types can be found hiding behind the raiment of respectability.

Only when a country is descending into violent mob-rule or rotten with corruption do you have to send for the military. It's a pretty desperate cry for help.

No he is probably one of the smartest people we have in government and we should start listening to him about the environment. In the last 8 years we have lost 30% of our ice cap. He predicted that.

Yes, i think he is because, his world doom and gloom theory of "global warming" is blown way out of proportion. It seems more like a Hollywood stunt show, than a result of his actual concern for the environment. Just take a look at how much energy his home's and planes consumes compared to what the average American does.

The first thing to remember in social science questions is that correlation does not indication causation. With that in mind, there is a link between education and imprisonment rates. Black Americans have had historically lower rates of finishing high school and college.

Also the fastest growing prison population is Hispanics, as this is the fastest

segment of population growth in the last decade.

India, USA, Britain snd Canada follow indirect democracy

This theory involves strict judicial restraint, to the degree where past 'errors' are corrected. In a sense, it is the reversal of decisions that are thought to too activist centered.

FREJ means FREEDOME REPRESENTATION EQUALITY AND JUSTICE

hope this helps :)

Karl Marx, who - along with Frederich Engels - wrote The Communist Manifesto.

no, it basically means that the government would control both your public and personal life

seperation of powers

Communism is an example of a political/socioeconomic idealogy, like Capitalism, Socialism, or Totalitarianism.

The loyal opposition urges votes to "throw the rascals out", that the "outs" should become the "ins" and the "ins" the "outs."

bad, the opposite of democracy, no freedom etc. etc.

The reason that Afghanistan is not terribly democratic, even though it has a number of democratic institutions (such as parliaments, elected presidents, etc.), is that the actual functioning of the government occurs less according to "legitimate" political processes, such as parliamentary voting procedures, bureaucratic agencies, and law enforcement agencies, and more through the use of backdoor channels and personal relationships. This has kept Afghanistan, while legally a federal system, much more confederal with individual warlords and their families exerting a large amount of control outside of major cities (Kabul, Qandahar, Herat, etc.)

No. Jefferson once said that two people were a law firm and three a political party. When there is a society that allows for the free expression of ideas and government there will always be political parties and discussion. Actually it is healthy for a society and government to discuss problems and try to solve them. One of the major factors that is needed is compromise and it seems that we have forgotten how to do that today and the result is nothing gets done.

For his time, John Stuart Mill was a great liberal political philosopher. In the first year of the US Civil War, Stuart believed that President Lincoln's acts that suspended important parts of the US Constitution were indeed acts of absolute power, however, he did not condemn them because he believed they were temporary and necessary war measures.

It provides that the foundation of the legitimacy of the state rests with the people and not any specific group of them.

Currently, most Japanese are horrified by fascism (and there is a strong pacifist movement in Japan), but historically, especially in the 1930s and 1940s, Japanese people were very patriotic and militaristic, making fascism popular.

If people having certain rights generates positive utility, then utilitarians must respect those rights in all cases where the benefits of respecting those rights outweigh the negatives of interfering in those rights. It's a very case-by-case basis with utilitarianism.