Multiplication Chart From 13-20

6. Elitism

In a study on the city of Atlanta, capital of Georgia, and published in 1959, Hunter showed that the entire power was firmly and permanently in the hands of a few business people (SINGLE 2000: 238). A elitist would not lose time to do such a study, since he assumes that this is the rule. The elitist believes that the vast majority of citizens will not be able to govern themselves and in need of guides, and approves and supports the dual society. Here, for example, what Mises would say: "That men are not all equal, ie that some are born to lead and others to be driven, it is a fact that democratic institutions can not change" (1990: 97). "The central doctrine of the elite - Rush writes - is that in any political system is a minority of the population to take key decisions" (1994: 70). The elitists from this finding: every society in history are "dual", ie they are divided in that a minority government and a majority that is ruled. They conclude: "It is a good thing and can not be that way."

6.1. The theory
elitist elitist theory starts from the obvious fact that "in all societies [...] there are two classes of people: those of the rulers and the ruled" (Moscow, 1994: 50) and the belief that the company meets dual " to a real need of the social nature of man "(Moscow, 1994: 70). According to Moscow is inevitable that organized minority to assume the government of the masses because, "there can be a human organization with no hierarchy, and any hierarchy that necessarily requires some Comandini and others and obey because it is in human nature that many of them love the control and most fit to obey, an institution can be very useful, which gives to those who are above the way to justify their authority and at the same time helps mightily to persuade those who are down to endure it "(1994: 194) . And if they do not, "any organization and any social structure would be destroyed" (Moscow, 1994: 51). What
expressly say or not, the elite is convinced that there are two kinds of men: men with higher capacities (the strongest, the best, the elite, the rulers), and those with lower capacities (the weak, the people, the masses, the rulers). The first, and they alone, should govern and govern, legislate and must legislate, command and must be controlled. All others should be excluded from power, because they do not make the cut. As the eternal children they must be kept under supervision by someone who decides for them and establish what their good and their evil and how they should be happy.
is the logic that the Jews have built a political ideal and that his model was rather rejected by the Greeks in favor of a shared responsibility among all citizens. Well, history teaches that, in this respect, the Jews were the real winners. Their logic, in fact, prevailed in all countries and in all ages, thus confirming the idea that people are fundamentally incapable of taking political responsibility and must be driven from one end. This idea has been internalized by the masses, who already feel honored and gratified by the mere fact of being called into question in periodic elections. But the elitists know that the DR is only an illusion of democracy and that elections are not a sign of the power of the people: they are only a sort of battle without bloodshed carried out by the ruling elites competing for the conquest of power.
The idea of \u200b\u200ba popular self-government is regarded by the ego. pure fantasy, since the power has always been run by a few individuals or a few groups. "It's not the people who aspire to govern themselves. The figure of the self-governing people, on the contrary, a creation of the intellectuals: it serves to legitimize their desire to unite in their own hands, in a society governed by reason and science, the same hegemony in society dominated by the faith they shared among their clergy and feudal lords "(SETTEMBRINI 1994: 70). Also according to Cross, the masses do not are able to govern themselves and do not know how to be the protagonists of the story: power is held only by the ruling classes. The elections themselves are not a sign of the power of the people are just sort of a survey of public opinion by the leaders.
To the elitists, in all societies there are two classes of people, a few leaders and many governments and, consequently, all governments are nothing more than oligarchies. Obtuse is the inevitable consequence of the masses, who need to move taking for sure. Moses that he is more certain: "It is true that the masses do not think. But it is precisely for this reason that they follow those who do. The intellectual guide humanity belongs to the few who think for themselves "(1990: 556). Pareto is explicit: "Leaving aside the fiction of" popular representation "and taking care of the substance, taken a few brief exceptions, everywhere there is a ruling class is small in numbers, which remains in power, partly by force, in part with the consent of the governed class, much more numerous' (1920: 444). The strength of the government is linked to their organization: Organised hundred thousand people will prevail over disunity.
Unlike Marxism, the elitists deny that history is made of class struggles and say that there is no alternative to the ruling classes, that the class of the poor has never ruled that the people there as a political force, as there is no popular will, that there are only leaders and that history is the struggle of minorities for supremacy "(SOLA 2000: 12 ). Leaders are people who prey, backed by an elite of wealthy, manipulate the masses, use them for their own purposes, conditions and exploit them by giving them, barely, the minimum for subsistence. They impose their law making people believe that it is the law can best interests of all, sometimes allow the elite to the masses to choose from which you are governed, but not at the same right to call to account for their actions.
In fact, leaders place themselves above the law and government so "irresponsible", so that can not be sued in the event of bankruptcy or administration of the State of misconduct. This applies not only to governments or monarchies of old, is also true for modern democracies where, as argued by Schumpeter, from a short list of names imposed from above, the people elect a leader and he entrusted the government of the country. The elitists, then, "subscribe to the existence of a single power elite, monolithic, homogeneous by origin and social situation, tend to be irresponsible and come to expression, direct or indirect, of economic power "(SOLA 2000: 228).

6.2. Elitism and social Darwinism
elitist theory has a strong compatibility with the theory of natural selection developed by Darwin, which is suitable to be integrated. Both, in fact, argue that living things compete with each other and the strongest dominate (and sometimes eliminate) the weakest. A masterful synthesis of the two theories has been implemented by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), which extends to the collective what Darwin proposed in the biological-individual, thus giving rise to the so-called social Darwinism, which collect a great success and become the dominant philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century. This philosophy stems from the doctrine elitist, which is illustrated in the works of Mosca, Pareto and Michels, between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and spread on the following key points: 1
. All the men compete with each other.
2. From this emerged the strongest competition (elite), which are siphoning off the power.
3. In every time and everywhere the power is concentrated in the hands of a small minority and therefore any government is oligarchic.
4. The dominant minorities are organized or at least much better organized than the majority alternative.
5. The law is imposed by the ruling class, ostensibly in the name of a god or the people, in reality by force.
6. The law is generated by the powerful and serves their interests.
7. The law can not be equal for all, since there are A-class citizens (the members of the elites) and second-class citizens (the so-called people.) Therefore, all companies are dual.
8. The elites can be closed, as is the case in aristocratic and autocratic regimes, or open, as is the case of democracies, but they are always restricted.

6.3. The reasons for success
The elite can be considered one of the most successful political theories of all time, and his supporters are legion: Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Roberto Michels constitute only the tip of the iceberg. The position of the elitists is a large sweep to the present day and, in fact, even the most important thinkers of the democratic faith, as N. Bobbio (1991: 47-9), G. Sartori (1993: 295) and D. Settembrini (1994: 70), continue to believe that the people are incapable of governing themselves and that we can not go beyond representative democracy. The same is Salvador Giner, a leading English social scientists, according to which direct democracy is a system desirable but difficult to put into practice "(1998: 71). Now this general distrust is not only encourage and strengthen the positions elitist.
Most citizens do not mean policy and many do not even bother to exercise their right to vote? That's okay, repeat with Plato's elitist. It is good that the people do not take any initiative if it did it would be a disaster. Politics, Plato said, is the stuff of philosophers. For their part, the elitists say, "politics is the stuff of professionals." They change the words, but the substance is the same. In both cases, most of which we speak of democracy oligarchy, "the elitist theory argues that democracy can function and survive only in the form of a de facto oligarchy of professional politicians and bureaucrats, whereas popular participation must be only during election, in other words that political apathy is a sign of health "(Finley 1972: VII).

6.4. Issues
remain some questions. Is it really true that the rulers are the best? Is it really true that the people are incapable of governing themselves? The elitists do not seem interested in such issues and assume that the leader has already been shown to have crushed the competition and be the strongest. They do not pose the question whether the governor is truly the most deserving, or if all ordinary citizens are truly unable to assume political responsibilities. The elitist is not asked "Who should rule?", Taking for assume that drive the best, or inquires about a possible government of the people, since, according to him, in all types of government, always commands the strongest. In short, the elite tend to give a very narrow definition of democracy which, at best, be considered as a means of choosing those who make the decisions and to curb their excesses "(HELD 1997: 221).

6.5. Limits
The elitists are pragmatic and faithfully describe what you see, in the same way a camera captures the scene as it appears from a certain vantage point. What is lacking in their critical spirit, the desire to whether what they see could change if conditions change or the point of observation. The elitist is quick to justify the appearance without delay to wonder why the things he sees, without adequately argue his opinion, that is, without bothering to prove either that the dominant are the best, or that the masses are really unable .

Where To Buy Potpourri Supplies Toronto

5. Tyranny

the government is called tyranny of one man, holding a despotic power, which can be oppressive and cruel or enlightened and philanthropic organizations. The
t. stated in the greek world from the seventh century. BC as reply to the need to restore social harmony in the troubled poleis by infighting.
Up to the sixth century and including the t. aristocracy was an internal phenomenon: fighting among themselves for the conquest of power, the aristocratic families engage in a demagogic populist policy aimed at gaining the support of the masses.
Generally, the tyrant polis regarded as his private property, and pursuing his interests even manage to establish a dynastic government, although not infrequently ruled wisely and well balanced. Only from the fifth century, with the emergence of democracy, the people became politically active and responsible person, and from that moment, t. was seen as the worst form of government antithetical to democracy.
During the Middle Ages gave the name of a tyrant to the pope or the emperor, who had no respect for anyone. Even today we use the word tyrant in its negative sense.

Granite And Drop In Stoves

4.0. Imperialism

is called i. the tendency on the part of a State to extend its political domination, economic, cultural and other countries, either by peaceful means than force. Eventually, the hegemonic state exercises a monopoly of force and imposes its law on other states. The i. can be seen as a sort of order between states, is for the equivalent within a state. The logic is the same, but placed at a different level.

4.1. Imperialism in the history
imperialist policies have been implemented continuously in the course of history (the last interpretation, which is developing before our eyes, is that of the U.S.), but no empire has resisted the pressure of time. As the i. is a common feature in the history of all times, the term typically refers to the colonial policies pursued by some Western countries, mainly Britain, France and Germany, followed by USA and Japan, between the mid-nineteenth century and World War II. It is the mature period of industrial capitalism, in which important state business groups and financial services, acting on a multinational level, dominate the market, to monopolize, and dictate the rules, also influence the political choices of the various countries concerned.

4.2. The causes of imperialism
One possible explanation of the self. is as follows: a world of sovereign states is in fact, as Rothbard points out, an anarchic world (2000: 305). Now, until the various heads of state are in balance of power, they are respected as equals, and when decisions need to be international, we consult and seek mutual approval. But it can happen that a dominus far exceed all others in power, who fear him and bend to his will, to elevate to the rank of Emperor. This is what happened in the past, until less than a century ago. Today with the spread of the DR, the figure of the emperor has virtually disappeared and was replaced by that of the President, but in essence the result is not changed much. Today there are more
emperors, but the idea of \u200b\u200bi. is still there. I. All forms of past and present, are based on what we might call the 'principle of superiority, "which can be interpreted in different ways. A country can develop an idea of \u200b\u200bsuperiority on the basis of religion, for example, feel predestined to dominate the earth by the will of a god, or because subjugated by the charismatic qualities of a leader (Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Macedonian), or because they have military techniques, weapons such as the availability of iron (Hittites), the use of the horse (Hittites), a better organization (CHF), or a combination of these factors (Romans, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, European colonizers). In any event, the foundation of all empire is there any idea of \u200b\u200bsuperiority that warrants the conduct of one country against others, which can be limited to the simple control of resources, but can also in real actions of conquest and explicit domain. In this respect, the i. similar to nationalism (see http://scuoladidemocrazia-stato-nazione.blogspot.com/).

4.3. Organization political empire
Normally, a newly elected emperor eliminates the most dangerous enemies and enslave the rest, and divide the fruits of achievements with those who have served faithfully, promising to protect their status in exchange for a tribute and promise, oath to continue to be faithful, to provide military support in case of his request. Is established as the typical relationship of vassalage, which link a monarch with great lords of lesser rank, makes possible the existence of broad and stable political organizations, which we call "empire."
Within each vassal of the empire is sovereign in their own home and can freely decide impose taxes and chores, administer justice, to decide war or peace, with one limitation: that of having to declare a regular basis, and to demonstrate by deeds, their loyalty to the emperor. For its part, the emperor can not be everywhere and can not personally control the fidelity of his vassals. In fact he will have to choose a place or places of residence and will have use of their officials, who affianchino in his work of government. Will also have a standing army, which will use both to ensure the loyalty of vassals, and to guard against the risk of external attacks, and for possible further action to conquer. Officials and military receive the money directly from the emperor who, in turn, derives from the tax imposed on the subjects. On the whole the system seems like a huge private property of the emperor, his vassals and the vassals of vassals, who take a special status, that is a noble title and, taken together, constitute the aristocratic class.
To prevent the death of the sovereign is causing them furious struggles for the succession, spread the habit of transmitting power by inheritance, and thus affirmed the dynastic principle. The problem is that the rulers are not always endowed with the qualities necessary to govern a state and it is inevitable that sometimes someone take advantage of it to overthrow the rightful king and establish a new dynasty. No empire, however, may continue for an indefinite time because it is impossible to eliminate all the internal factors of disintegration, nor set up and properly address the dangers progengono outside.
Even a skilled and capable ruler, and at the height of power, find it hard to keep everything under control, especially in the more inaccessible areas of his kingdom and in the border areas, where they can form groups of outlaws, who lost no opportunity to attack travelers and villages, during a robbery. Usually these groups do not constitute a real threat to the legitimate sovereign, but sometimes creates favorable conditions for even a small gang leader can become so powerful that overthrow. The skills required are: initiative, organizational skills, determination, charisma, ruthlessness and blind faith in ideals, strong self-esteem and a lot of luck. Whoever possesses these qualities, though of humble origins, can put at the head of an armed gang and give the raids and looting, enrich, enhance and groped her after the conquest of a fortress or a city, and conquer other territories and other cities.
At all times, there have been examples of empires created by leaders, generals, religious fanatics and adventurers from lower social classes and constantly looking for opportunities to acquire resources and power, as Sargon, the creator of the first empire in history, Liu Bang, founder of the Han Dynasty, Genghis Khan and Timur Lang, also founders of great empires.

4.4. The role of law
Although established by force, an empire can have a long life thanks to the law, which gives legitimacy to the emperor and stability to the political system he created. The law states that the sovereign is entitled to govern because he received his power from God and, usually, the public does not find it hard to accept this principle, even if everyone is able to notice that, in reality, the power originates by the force. This ambiguity emerges in Europe, where, after the fall of Rome, on the one hand is the custom, under which the emperor was anointed by God through the hands of the pope, on the other hand it also happens that both the emperor to walk on head the crown with his own hands. Long live the two models, but in the end neither able to assert itself, until, with the famous Golden Bull (1356), Charles IV, in order to finally escape the imperial title from the papal jurisdiction, provides that the emperor should be appointed by seven electors of Germany.
the bubble, however, does not terminate the question of the origin of power and, centuries, popes and emperors will continue to be considered the only sources of political power, after God of course, and, as such, qualified to dispense titles, in the framework of a partial admixture of secular and religious sphere. With these assumptions, we understand how the Holy Roman Empire, which was inaugurated in 962, thanks to an agreement between Otto I and Pope John XII, will survive until 1806.

Traitement Of Viral Std

3. Monarchism

For m. means the government of one who exercises power by the will of a god (and / or the people), in an absolute way or the limitation of a Council for a Parliament or a Constitution, sometimes with a right to transmit their descendants (dynastic right). In m. absolute "The legal system is created in all its stages and applied directly by the monarch or by bodies appointed by it. The monarch is personally irresponsible, and he is not subject to the law, not being subject to any legal sanction. The position of monarch is hereditary, each sovereign or appoint his successor "(Kelsen 1994: 305).

3.1. The monarchy in the history
probably m. is the most widely practiced form of government in history, from its remotest origins and until the first half of the twentieth century. In its favor were cast those who do not believe in the city and want a dual society.
Until the end of the High Middle Ages, M is taken for granted, but after the establishment of municipalities and the particular historical development of England, it is necessary to explain why we should prefer it to forms of participatory governance. And then you go saying that the state is like a family where there is a father (the king) who takes care of his wife and children (the subjects) in return for respect and obedience. Confront the idea of \u200b\u200bm. that is to say that the family M is a natural fact, as is family, and also means that the subjects take on the status of the infant son. Moreover, it is saying that the king is directly installed on the throne of God, which means that its shape is not only natural but also sacred and therefore should not be questioned. And, in fact, the institution of the monarchy is not questioned, at least until the French Revolution.
For St. Thomas Aquinas, M constitutes "the best form of government" (HELD 1997: 60). Dante agrees: "there must be one that drives and controls, ie, the monarch or emperor. And so it is clear that the welfare of the world fits the Monarchy or Empire (Monarchy , I 6.10).
Even in the modern age is widespread the old idea that the state is the monarch's private property, along with the subjects. This concept, which is already implicitly present in the thought of Machiavelli, is explicitly affirmed and reaffirmed later by Jean Bodin, from Cardinal Richelieu, King James I of England and many others, and even if there are any dissenting voice, like that of Henry Parker, in the first half of the seventeenth century, gives the sovereignty of Parliament, until the time of Locke, according to the prevailing opinion, the king receives his authority from God and rule by divine right: this is the argument put forward by Robert Filmer in his book, The Patriarch , now almost forgotten, and also shared by the Catholic Church.
From this line of thought has distanced Locke, who argues that the authority policy is not from God but from the consent of the people, and that state power is in the service of citizens, and not vice versa. In giving its consent to a king, says Locke, the people retain sovereignty and the right to remove, if he does not fulfill their natural rights. On this basis, starting in the Glorious Revolution, is affirmed M parliamentary and elective and enters into the modern world the spirit DR. The shift is clear. While Roman law, in fact, had spoken in favor of the principle that the will of the king is above the law and does not depend on it, now you begin to say that the king is subject to the law.
The change is important, but not so to alter the substance of things. In fact, as Norberto Bobbio has correctly noted, even if someone thought that the elective monarchy was better than hereditary, "nobody has ever thought that a monarchy for being elected monarchy was no longer" (1999: 325). According to the anarchist Godwin, the monarchy is the worst of governments, because it is based on the differences by birth and wealth, and "people do not fit on its own merits but according to his titles." Each king is "enemy of the human race" (Godwin 1997: 120). Indeed, where there is M, there is inequality by birth and where there is inequality birth there is no democracy.