Abstract This paper discusses the concept of a commonwealth and how it differs from the regular state-federal government structure. The paper specifically focuses on the commonwealth status of Puerto Rico and how it functions within the United States. The paper describes the history of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico and discusses the problems that it causes for Puerto Ricans, as well as possible solutions.
From the Paper "It also makes sense for Puerto Ricans to question the idea of statehood. Americans have proven historically resistant to non-assimilation, which means that statehood will probably result in the eventual loss of the Puerto Rican cultural identity, even if Puerto Rico was entitled to keep Spanish as its official language upon attaining statehood. Statehood is unlikely to provide an immediate fix for Puerto Rico's economic woes; though it is poorer than the poorest state in the United States, a comparison of the wealth of different states makes it clear that statehood does not confer wealth. In fact, Puerto Ricans are already entitled to significant government benefits aimed at alleviating their financial woes, which would mean that statehood probably would not benefit individual Puerto Ricans financially. However, Puerto Rico does not get the same type of money for infrastructure as states do, and statehood would help improve its infrastructure to that of a major world power, rather than a third-world nation. Statehood would give Puerto Rico a voice in the federal government, both by providing representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and by giving Puerto Ricans an actual voice in U.S. presidential elections. However, it is naive to assume that such a voice would have a dramatic impact. Puerto Rico would still have a diverse set of cultural traditions and real needs, compared to the existing 50 states, and it would probably be decades before any Puerto Rican representatives could exercise any type of substantial power in any branch of the Federal government."
Abstract This five-page undergraduate paper examines the most important differences between Locke's commonwealth and Rousseau's republic. These differences are mainly accounted for in the philosophers' differing views of the state of nature.
Abstract Cultures evolve over time in response to changes in environment and social conditions. The paper shows how this fact is brought home in "A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony", where John Demos ostensibly sets out to reconstruct the typical life of an average Pilgrim household in the seventeenth century. However, since Demos uses a social history rather than a narrative framework, he succeeds in effectively establishing the manner in which the Pilgrim families adapted to their new environment. The paper shows that Demos achieves this through a process of analysis and interpretation of everyday life, using method and theory from the social sciences. This approach allows Demos to infer that the opportunities for geographical and social mobility offered by the new environment led to changes in the family system and ideals that the Pilgrims brought with them from the Old World.
From the Paper "Demos's focus on cultural changes wrought by a new environment succeeds in highlighting the evolved status of women as well. Noting a trend towards an expansion of the rights of married women to hold property, in family decision making, and even in certain types of business activity such as the management of inns and taverns, Demos points out a growing equality of the sexes in Plymouth, as compared to many parts of Europe where a wife was still quite literally at the mercy of her husband. Although Demos sets out to showcase how everyday family life in Plymouth reflected cultural change from the Old World habitat, his analysis is objective enough to acknowledge areas where there was little or no change."
Abstract This paper elucidates on the history of Australia highlighting the challenges and how the country was able to curb them in a successful manner. Australia's relations with the United States during the twentieth century, the Australian monetary system, the Commonwealth Bank and the problem of Australian national debt are looked into for a better understanding of the economic, strategic and political stance in the twentieth century. The success of the Australian Commonwealth bank is analyzed as being the prime success of the Australian economy, while the problem of national debt is looked at as a major crisis occurring in the otherwise glorious century in Australian history. Following is a comprehensive analysis that acquaints the reader with the weaknesses and strengths of Australia.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Historical Background
Australia and United States Relationship in the Twentieth Century
The Commonwealth Bank and Australian Monetary System
Central Bank 1920-60
Downside of Australia: Constitutional Crisis of 1975 and Problem of National Debt:
Role of USA in Resolving the Crisis:
Issue of National Debt
Conclusion
From the Paper "The new federation quickly moved towards the institutionalization of its economic and socio-political and industrial revampment for the perusal of prosperity. What followed was governance that gained popularity for its liberal legislation.
Australia immediately instituted high protective tariffs in order to restrain competition to Australian infant industry. This gave a major head start to the Australian industrial development, a form of supplementation for the infant industry to develop without facing any unhealthy competitions until its ready for the world market. In the next two decades many important enactments were ratified. Most notably, Pacific Island Laborer's Act 1901, Immigration restriction Act 1901, Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, Judiciary Act 1903, Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, Supreme Court Ordinance no. 9 of 1911, Commonwealth Electoral Act 1924 and Belfour Declaration 1926. In fact, the two decades of legal formulation serve as a milestone of Australian development as an industry, society, government and economy. The Laborer's Act of 1901 was enacted to deport a vast majority of the Pacific Islanders by December 1907."
Abstract This paper explains that Puerto Rico, a commonwealth of the U.S., is located in the Caribbean Sea, one of over 7,000 tropical islands called the West Indies, is a high tourist area because of its breath-taking beauty. The author points out there is an argument about Puerto Rico becoming a state, which would lead to assimilation into the United States' culture, or remaining a commonwealth, a nation separate from the United States; however, the United States has a strong argument when it says that either Puerto Rico joins in on all the responsibilities of being a state or receive none of the benefits, if it does not become a state. The paper relates that the economy of Puerto Rico has had the benefit of a duty-free status, which has brought American owned companies; but, even though there is a minimum wage, there are not enough jobs and therefore there is a marked migration of Puerto Ricans to the United States.
From the Paper "Ignorance about Puerto Rico on behalf of Americans has existed for many years. Most Americans do not know that Puerto Ricans use American currency, that one cannot drive to Puerto Rico, and that every person born on the island is an American citizen. Many Americans are angry that Puerto Ricans receive welfare benefits and citizenship and yet they do not pay into the U.S. Treasury. However, these beliefs about Puerto Ricans are un-educated because in fact, "Against their will, Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917" (Cueto, Fernandez, Mendez ix). In order to fully understand why this is, it is important to study the history of the Puerto Rican people and then to utilize this knowledge to educate other Americans."
Abstract An analysis of writings which took place during political turmoil of the English Civil Wars during the 1640?s. Thomas Hobbes argues for absolute sovereignty, as well as the idea that sovereignty cannot commit injury against the commonwealth and that such absolute sovereignty would not be oppressive.
From the Paper "Hobbes? argument that sovereignty would not commit an injustice is set up by his argument that everyone (the subjects) is the author of the actions and judgments that the sovereignty makes. In Hobbes? political structure, those who were not originally in favor of the sovereignty that ends up with the "most votes" per say, still must support the sovereignty. In having the right to vote their opinion, they are basically promising to support the sovereignty no matter what ? even if their sovereignty loses the vote. In relation to our political system, if we vote, we must support the President no matter what ? even if our candidate doesn?t get the Presidency. Therefore, according to Hobbes, "because every subject is by this institution author of all the actions and the judgments of the sovereign instituted", it is understood that what he does "can be no injury to any of his subjects" (232). He continues the argument by stating how men who speak out against the sovereignty's actions "complaineth of that whereof he himself is author" (232). He reiterates his initial position by pointing out that it is possible for the sovereignty to "commit iniquity", but not any injustice."
Abstract This paper details the way of life in Utopia- its inhabitants, society, laws, marriages- and compares it to life in England. Utopia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy but a commonwealth whose primary focus is on intellectual pursuits.
From the Paper "Portuguese traveler Raphael Hythloday tells Thomas More and Peter Giles about the ideal conditions and institutions of the inhabitants of the island called Utopia in the isthmus, which he boasts are far better than those in England at that time. Hythloday describes this society as based on rational thought, communal property, optimum productivity, no class distinctions, no greed for wealth or money, no poverty, a minimum of crime and immorality. Although the men dominate Utopia and women are politically powerless and without identity, women are considered privileged and enjoy greater advantages in it than those in England.
They are not given away in early marriage, i.e., before they are 18 years old and men cannot marry unless they are at least 22, which are rather mature ages. Those who violate this rule are severely punished and the subsequent privilege to marry is denied them, except with a special warrant from the Prince (More Book II 1516). When such a thing happens, the families of the couple suffer bad reputation, because it reflects on the parents? or families? failure to discipline and teach their children properly. Responsible parenthood to the Utopians consists in eliminating or taming the children's sensual appetite, which drives them to satisfy it within marriage and suffer all the inconveniences of being married to one person for the rest of one's life."
Abstract This paper examines how Jamaica gained full independence in 1962 within the British Commonwealth and how it has had since much political and economic trouble. It looks at various pieces of demographic information about the country as well as the structure of it government, foreign policy and its economy. In particular it discusses its relationship with the United States since the U.S. provides economic aid and it is the biggest trading partner and main source for tourists.
Outline
Background
National Interest
National Purpose
Ideology
International Relations
Foreign relations
Threats
Domestic
American Military Involvement
From the Paper "The US began to give particular attention to Jamaica after Fidel Castro took power in Cuba. Jamaica's geographical location and its borders to both Cuba and US increased Jamaica's importance in the region and the US increased its economic interest in Jamaica because of the political interest. Though in the 1970s Jamaica tried to shift its reliance on US and Commonwealth Nations, the new government meanwhile in 1972 established diplomatic relations with Cuba. This has been a bold move keeping in mind that Jamaica was a member of OAS. In addition the relation between Jamaica and US also was hampered when Prime Minister Manley used anti-US rhetoric in Third World Forums and his support for Cuban interventionism in Africa. In the 1980s however after Manley was ousted, the Jamaican foreign policy was changed and it again began to have close and cooperative relations with United States."
This paper compares and contrasts the development of the Loyalist myth and tradition in Upper Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and briefly sketches some of the myth's long-term influence on Canada.
Abstract The paper first defines the words myth, tradition and legend. Resulting from the definitions, the writer states that the so-called myths surrounding the Loyalists should more correctly be labeled legend and tradition. The paper explains that when the Loyalist was extirpated from American soil for being un-American, the Loyalist, robbed of his identity, and forced to create a new one, insisted he was British. The writer explains the relationship between the Loyalist and Britain to be one of child to parent. The writer explains the development of the Loyalist legend, noting that the natural antipathy many Loyalists felt towards the Americans, mingled with feelings of superiority, always warred with the knowledge that America was, in fact, their true homeland. The writer posits that the delay in Canada attaining independence may also be traced to the Loyalist tradition because English Canadians always seemed nervous about cutting the ties between mother and child. The writer concludes that the Loyalist tradition, although muted, is still a force in Canadian life and that this can be seen in the fact that Canada still belongs to the British Commonwealth.
From the Paper "A historical myth can have several definitions. A useful one is that it is "a means of self-identification, deriving its justification from an ideological reinterpretation of the historical past." Here the key word is self-identification. When he was extirpated from American soil for being un-American, the Loyalist, robbed of his identity, and forced to create a new one, insisted he was British. But since he was not British, he had to define for himself a special relationship with Britain; the only one available to him was that of child to parent. Hence so many Loyalist references to the "mother country," and so long an interval before Canada gained independence. Even today the titular head of Canada is also from the "mother country."
"Because events had made him a loser, the Loyalist desperately needed to turn his defeat into victory. He especially needed to do so in those areas-such as New Brunswick and Upper Canada-which he had founded, because no nation can be born out of defeat. He did so by emphasizing his loyalty: loyalty to Britain, to the British Constitution, and to the monarchy. In fact, loyalty came to function "as the founding and integrating myth of the new society." Loyalty, however, was never focused on Canada but always on Britain. Two manifestations of the focus, at least up to the 1960s, were a Canadian national anthem and a flag both of which were British. "
Abstract This paper attempts to dissect Hobbes' "Leviathan" and provides the reader with a better understanding of the sovereign's status within the commonwealth, while at the same time touch upon Hobbes' view on human nature and justice.
From the Paper "Furthermore, all laws, either written or unwritten, derive their authority from the commonwealth (a.k.a. the sovereign), and to disobey the sovereign is not only breaking the original covenant the subject made to grant the sovereign the right to rule, but it's breaking the law (178). To put it most simply, when any subject disobeys the sovereign, the only person the subject hurts is himself. "Take away in any kind of state, the obedience (and consequently the concord of the people,) and they shall not only not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience, to do no more than reform the commonwealth, shall find they do thereby destroy it" (224-25). "
Tags: justice, philosphy, government, Commonwealth, sovereign
Abstract This paper discusses whether Canada is suffering from the phenomenon of Americanization and if the Canadian national identity is, in fact, dead. The paper cites evidence to suggest that Canada is still primarily an individual nation identified by a special Canadian nationalism and that Canada maintains a sense of pride in its nation's culture, heritage, values and traditions.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Basic Evidence Of Separate Societies
Canada: A Bi-Cultural Nation Of English And French
The Commonwealth Connection And A Different Federal Government
Canada's Liberal Sensitivities - The Envy Of Many Americans
A Richly Diverse Multicultural Make-Up And Un-American Migration Laws
Naysayers
Conclusion
From the Paper "The abovementioned arguments each provide ample evidence that Canada has not been Americanized but in fact is a unique, admirable culture living fairly peacefully alongside American culture. Canada is the bearer of a proud national culture and heritage, with values and traditions which contrast sharply to those of America's. One need only observe the personal opinions of both the American and Canadian peoples, the governmental structure of each nation, cultural attitudes towards humanity, democracy, and liberalism, and perspectives on healthcare, crime and sexual orientation to observe a blatant difference between American and Canadian sentiment. Further evidence of Canada's resistance towards Americanization is the nation's bi-cultural English-French nature, its Commonwealth federal government, liberality and opinions on immigration, all factors which sets the nation apart from its southern neighbor."
Abstract This paper discusses how Cicero put together two rather important philosophical works within the realm of political philosophy: "On Commonwealth" and "On Law". It looks at how, though rarely regarded by modern Western philosophers as one of the most influential thinkers within the tradition, Cicero is nonetheless responsible for bringing the classical Greek perspective back into the Roman school of philosophy. It also examines how Cicero also was one of the first philosophers to introduce the notion of Natural Law into the equation of the ideal society--though he is rarely credited with this achievement.
From the Paper "At several points within On Commonwealth and On Law Cicero attempts to illustrate the early days of the Roman republic as being far closer to an in ideal society than the age from which he wrote. He appeals to the great leader, Marius, who was the first consul to arise out of the Republic as an individual leader. Out of the struggles of the Punic Wars, from which Rome created much of its early identity as a state in which anyone could live within, the Roman Republic, in reality, began to deteriorate with the naming of Marius as consul. The Punic Wars lasted over a century--between 264 BCE and 146 BCE--but by the time that Rome finally managed to utterly defeat its only major Mediterranean rival, the vast empire that had been accumulated could no longer be stably supported by the Republic as it had functioned until that point. "
Abstract Any discussion of the function of moral rules in a social environment such as that envisioned by Thomas Hobbes in his "Leviathan" (1651) must first define exactly what is meant by the term "moral rules". This is because the society or "commonwealth" that Hobbes employs as his theoretical model has no place for morality or moral rules as they are popularly defined. Rather, as this paper will argue, morality in the commonwealth of Hobbes is a product of self-interested humanity. In such an context, as will be seen, the closest analogue to moral rules would be the "civil laws" of the commonwealth which come into being through the "social contract" agreed to by the constituent members of the commonwealth. Finally, the paper will conclude with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Hobbes' ethical theory.
Abstract Thomas Hobbes lived in the 17th century and wrote during the time of the English Civil War. His political views most likely were influenced by the war. To understand the complexity of Thomas Hobbes's ideas, as expressed in "Leviathan" about the state of nature, this paper defines Hobbes's concept of a state of nature as being one of absolute liberty where men are viewed as natural persons who have never experienced the implied security of a commonwealth. Furthermore, this paper characterizes the commonwealth as a state of peace, offering its fellowship harmony and fruitful existence. This paper demonstrates the reasons and conditions that might compel a man to exchange his complete liberty for the conceptual security offered by a commonwealth.
From the Paper "To use Hobbes's phraseology, the state of war exists when knowledge of conflict is present: "so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto" (Hobbes 1590). True misery is a situation in which men feel they are likely to lose their lives, and therefore are faced with the fear of death. According to Hobbes, individuals value their own survival and well-being much more highly than the survival and well-being of others. Hence, if man believes a certain action best helps to maintain his own security, he is very likely to undertake it, even if it puts at risk the survival or well-being of others. Life becomes a constant battle for survival."
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the political beliefs of the two philosophers and theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It looks at how Hobbes' political theory is illustrated in the Leviathan which discusses the matter, form and power of a commonwealth. Hobbes was a social contract theorist who believed that a commonwealth was "but an artificial man?. It shows how Locke was also a social contract theorist who believed that the purpose of government was to protect the lives of subjects.
Outline
Hobbes
Locke
The Most Fundamental Differences
Weaknesses and Strengths
From the Paper "Though both of these philosophers are social contract theorist there are some small differences in their ideals. Hobbes believed that once subjects gave consent to be governed they must abide by the laws set forth by that sovereign. He believed that subjects should be certain that the sovereign is going to do everything in his power to preserve their lives before they transfer their rights and wills to him. Once the rights and wills of the subjects are tranfered the sovereign becomes the voice of the commonwealth and his authority must be respected--the sovereign was the supreme power."
