I know that you are probably looking for more of a conceptual critique, but there were a few mistakes i noticed.
In fact, when the various theories are applied in their purist form.
You mean their purest form. A purist is a person, purest means most pure.
as people are free to gain as much economic prowess that they are capable of
You might want to substitute as for that, and prowess doesn't really fit into the overal sentence IMO, I understand the avoidance of the overused 'power' but you might want to look for a better synonym.
These autocratic governments normally have a very strong military, and use their might to seize colonies for the sole purpose of benefiting the main country. This ideology is called imperialism.
I know you are trying to simplify here but, you make it seem as though imperialism is exercised by autocratic governments exclusively. This is not really the case. American imperialism, is a perfect example of democratic imperialism.
texas
california
hawaii
A close example of communism
Maybe a good example or an exemplar.
Therefore, I suggest that all laws be established at the federal level
This would almost certainly be doomed to failure, not simply because many states do not want to have the same laws that pther states have, but because federal laws are much much harder to write and enforce. That is why only certain things are under federal jurisdiction, because the federal governments move much more slowly than state governments. Also the U.S. is designed to preserve the independance of the states, a law that works in new york many not be great for people in idaho. Also many smaller states would effectively be cut out from the desicion making process if the larger states wanted a law and they did not.
These statistics show a clear correlation between drug use and crime
correlation != causation, as one of our more right leaning friends has been known to say, correctly i might add.
This frees those who do not want to be around those who smoke and the potentially harmful effects of being around smokers, while still allowing smokers the freedom to do so in private property and some public places.
What about people who live in the houses of smokers, such as their children. limiting something to private property does not neccesarily stop it from infringing on the health of others. It would be far more beneficial to simply ban tobacco companies from displaying or advertising tobacco products at all. Thus while you can't solve the problem of people using drugs or tobacco in private properties you could at least reduce the uptake of the habit significantly.
Another important issue regarding freedom and protection is the right to bear arms. The ownership of firearms has the clear potential to infringe on others? rights?in this case their right to live. The right to bear arms should be maintained, but there should be some clear restrictions on who can own them. In order to prevent firearm-related crimes, anyone convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors, or found to have psychological problems should not be allowed to own a firearm. It has been shown that once a person commits a crime it is very likely that they will commit another crime (this is called recidivism). Because of this increased risk of criminal activity, it makes sense to limit criminals? ability to commit a crime, especially a violent one, but it is also important not to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens. It has also been shown that many crimes, namely theft/larceny/robbery, are for financial gain. By applying a tax to the sale of certain firearms, those who need to steal would not be able to afford these weapons, and without a firearm they would be unable to forcefully steal them. All weapons would also have to be registered with the government, so that when a person is convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors, the weapons will be confiscated into government property.
were you solution to this one problem as longs as the rest of this essay, it would still be too small. This is a debate that cannot be dealt with in one paragraph. I am all for gun control but my solution or attempt at one would certainly involve more of a varied approach, the issue is just too complex. Frankly a single paragraph approaches arrogance to me. for one things resticting gun sales has pretty much one effect, people who legally could own a gun will have more trouble criminals will not. Not saying this is good or bad, just that it is true, criminals don't have to get guns through legitimate means, they are criminals after all.
This debate was sparked in the 2000 elections when George W. Bush won the election despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore (Bush won the majority of the electoral votes?271 to Gore?s 266, but Gore won the popular vote 50,992,335 to 50,455,156). Because all populations have representation, thus having their voice heard, the presidential elections should be decided by popular vote and not through the Electoral College. Utilizing the popular vote would also open the government up to third parties, giving people more freedom by having more choices. The government should not be limited to two choices, as there are often more than two sides to a story, and thus more than two solutions to any given problem.
The electoral college is not the problem, it does what it should which is to force, somewhat at least, candidates to be aware of smaller states. The real reform neccesary would be to the type of vote taking place, in america there is a winner take all situation, the equitablility of the system would be increased immensly simply by changing to an instant run off system.
In fact i might just start a topic of that nature.
thanks
Cutting off foreign aid is also very probable
You cut off foreign aid, and we will all see how well we like radiactive oil. I wonder if my SUV would get better gas milage using that new radioactive stuff. just kidding i don't own an SUV, they are for ignorant wankers who don't give a fVck about anyone but themselves. Not talking about environmental degradation here, I'm talking about if you hit anything other than an SUV with your SUV that thing is 3 times more likely to die. And guess what you are no more likely to survive. Sounds great sign me up.
as for the radioactive oil issue, the only things that stops all out war in the middle east is the 3 billion in aid the US sends to Israel and the saudi's, cut that off and Israel would have very little choice but to use its nukes in a new version of the six day war, we'll call this one the 1 day war how about. Not saying i support Israel, just saying it would happen. And the procurement of oil is a domestic issue.
Interesting but you need to ellaborate more i think especially in the theory section, by the way is this for a class or just for fun? if it is just for fun, then sorry for the proof reading.
