7-10 Split

2004-07-14T08:29:00.000+01:00

Well, it's been about a month since I last posted. Shameful.

Anyhow, I'm thinking about adopting a LiveJournal, because I think keeping up with others' thoughts would help me to continually record my own. However, I'll keep this site for essays and stuff. So 7-10 Split has officially become really boring.

Ciao

2004-07-07T09:32:00.000+01:00

My, it's been ages since I've posted.

So, to find out what's up, eh?

Well, I'm back in Alaska at the moment and somewhat homeless. Living on couches at Sean's place and at Mom's out in Wasilla. It's actually a rather annoying existence, but we'll see how thiungs go. It's only for another month or so. So I'll survive.

Back at the Heritage Center doing the catering thing, which is fun. There are some rather annoying people to have to deal with. A lot of returns from last year, but some of them assume far too much in regards to friendliness and how they treat me and other people.

Ah well.

Back at church, which is nice. I really had missed Pastor Oldfield. It's nice to have both fantastic music *as well as* great preaching.

but I want to check e-mail.

2004-04-12T13:36:00.000+01:00

Well, he said that he doesn't reciprocate, so I guess all is well and back to status quo, though admittedly, I'm rather saddened. I'll get over it, though. At least he wants to maintain friendship, so that's a good thing.

I think God's still teaching me patience.

There was a really good discussion last night after church at Carys'. I think I should go harangue David a bit more, and perhaps unload a few things on him. I feel like I'm living a bit of a double life, and it's just not healthy. Oy vey!

2004-04-01T22:13:00.000+01:00

So I'm abit of a buffoon in my admiration for Alex, but what can I do? I can't help but feel like he would be right for me, the perfect mixture of intellect and kindness. But I can't read what's going on. I finally sent him an e-mail letting him know how I felt, but it's too early to expect a reply. We'll see what he says, or if he says anything.

I hate waiting.

God's teaching me patience.

2004-01-15T13:02:00.000Z

Has ‘majority rule’ in South Africa brought with it the ‘tyranny of the majority’?

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. ~Spock

It is a simple fact of life that everyone cannot get what they want at all times; someone is invariably left out of the benefits of an action. Within a democracy, the aim is please as many people as possible, sometimes at the expense of the minority. Such is the case of South Africa where the question is: has the newfound democratic majority rule ushered in an era of tyranny by that majority? Sadly, the only answer can be yes, as no state can properly be rid of such a fault; however, South Africa’s new regime has taken valiant measures to minimise fears of such a system.
Firstly, it would be wise to clarify exactly what a tyranny of the majority is. Such a tyranny manifests itself in many ways; however, the basic underlying factors are always retained. One of the more common definitions was put forward by Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of the United States during the early 19th Century wherein he claimed that the majority are essentially seduced to think along the same lines and any outsiders are brought into the dominant mode of thinking so that they will reflect their neighbours’. This creates“homogeneity of public opinion” and leaves those outside the mainstream to no recourse outside of the majority’s power. Often, there will be discriminatory or apathetic legislation passed, but sometimes this tyranny can lead to physical violence, as in the cases of the Jews in Nazi Germany, the massacres of the Tutsi people by the majority Hutus in Rwanda in 1994 and the extermination of 1.5 million Turkish Armenians in 1915. Race is not the only factor in such tyranny, merely one of the more obvious; class, religion and various other discriminants may lead a person to join a “group” or “community” and that group to gain consciousness of itself because of continual differential treatment.
In the case of South Africa, the coalition that created the transitional constitution and the Constitution of 1996 was afraid of a mirror-image of the previous apartheid state wherein the majority black population would essentially ignore the rights of the white minority and pay back the treatment they had suffered. This was especially relevant to the National Party (NP), but the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) was concerned about its position after having such a free hand in the KwaZulu Nataal for so many years: the African National Congress (ANC) was a threat to this ethnically-based power. The IFP was fully aware of the special relationship they held with the NP and had no desire to join under a government where they would have less poweriii. Therefore, when drafting the transitional constitution, there was an all-party Convention for a Democratic South Africa wherein every political party made its demands heard. The talks broke down due to refusals to compromise over the time frame of the transitional government (ten years or five) and at what point a working constitution would be used (before or after an assembly was elected). Eventually, compromise occurred and the transitional government took over, leading to a second Constitution which included many measures to maintain equality. Party list proportional representation was chosen over set constituencies as the best option for electing the assembly to protect minority voices in the assembly. In practice, this over-represents minority groups as compared to their actual proportions of the general population.
Beyond that, special care was taken to protect the rights of the various ethnic groups by recognizing fourteen languages as official, effectively guaranteeing the Afrikaner population, as well as others, that they would be able to continue educating their children in their native tongue without interference from the state. As a concession to the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU), the ANC limited the president to two terms and promoted proportional representation.v A Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution, as well, as was a constitutional court wherein people could take legal grievances and appeal through the judicial system. Afrikaners were not stripped of their social positions, nor have they returned to their early 20th Century state. Before the apartheid system, they were, as a whole, rural farm owners and blue-collar workersiv; standards of living were barely above the black population. By the nineties, this was no longer the case and there seems to be no return in sight for such economic problems. Not only were Afrikaners better off than they were at the start of Apartheid, blacks also fared better, as evidenced in a growing middle class. By 2002, blacks held 10% of the top 20% of wage earners in South Africa and a growing number of them were finding their way into managerial positions.v Within the national assembly in 1999, whites took up one-sixth of the seats while only being a little over ten percent of the populationv, showing that they were, by no means, marginalised as a group. Women, Indians, and Coloured Africans as well had greater representation that ever before. Other democratic mechanisms include lobbying, a shared vice-presidency wherein the opposition parties choose people for the posts, and a mixed cabinet where any party with five percent or more of the vote is guaranteed a spot.
None of this is infallible, however, as can be seen in practice. In reality, the ANC is currently headed towards a position similar to that of the former one-party system in Mexico or in Taiwaniv where there are token opposition parties, but one group has free reign due to its influence and ethnic backing and no amount of campaigning or legislation can effect the party’s strangle-hold on power. Part of the definition of the modern democracy is the possibility of new majorities to form through coalitions or new majorities in a parliament, but the ANC has recently consolidated its power and now controls nearly two-thirds of the seats in the assembly. According to Giliomee, in 1994, the racial issue was paramount in that 90% of whites and blacks “voted their ‘colour’”iv by voting for groups which had historical ties to their race and that “in divided societies election assume the form of a racial or ethnic census”iv. This tyranny can be seen in action through the land restitution policies: when land or housing is returned to the original inhabitant, then the current occupier is deprived of his property by the state with little recourse, regardless of his guilt in the transaction. Ultimately, this policy could benefit a large number of people if they effectively take advantage of it, but a minority will be harmed in the process.
The IFP is continually at odds with the ANC because of its perception that the ANC is a Xhosa organisationiii and that Zulus need a stronger voice to combat this rival ethnic group. No party other than the ANC can hope for a majority or to be part of a coalition majority in the foreseeable future, which could lead to disenfranchisement of minority voters as they see that their actions are ineffectual. No matter what, parties such as the NP, IFP, or the Democratic Party cannot hope to defeat the ANC and the ANC has all but free hand in getting legislation through. Admittedly, they have been very restrained in creating policy that is most equitable, but the possibility is still there for them to take advantage of their numbers and usher in policies that would only benefit their constituency. Another bad sign is Inkatha’s denouncement of the deal by the NP and ANC which led to the transitional government because they disapproved of the NP’s forgoing the agreed-upon negotiating strategy.iv The Constitution is therefore not completely universal, as it is claimed.
Obviously, the new South African state is far from perfect and there are many elements of a tyranny of the majority ANC and African populations over the various minority groups. It is questionable to what extent democracy has taken hold in the new regime, though that is its particular aim, due to the overwhelming strength of the ANC. It will be interesting to see if South Africa retains such proportions in its assembly and whether or not it will be possible for the country to promote the needs of its minority groups successfully. On the other hand, coming from such a dramatic and tragic tyranny by the white minority under apartheid, there is little doubt that the new institutions are much more democratic and great care is being taken to keep from infringing on the rights of all of the various peoples living under the regime. The balance of power has shifted along with a general consensus that South Africa must be better than ever before and so must not purposely uphold one group over another, so it can be concluded that whatever tyranny of a majority has occurred, it is less than could exist and certainly is being curbed by various mechanisms inherent to the set up of the new state.

Word Count: 1492

2003-12-15T01:47:00.000Z

In einen idealen Welt, haben Männer und Frauen einigen Rollen. Wenn sie heiraten, verspircht der Mann seine Frau zu schützen, während die Frau ihre Mann helfen muβ. Er kann die Entscheidung treffen, aber sie muβ einwilligen. Die wichtigste Sache in seine Ehe ist Leibe und nachste ist Vertrauen. Wenn eine Frau ihr Mann liebt, sollte sie sein Lebe versuchen zu verbessern. Er sollte daβ, auch.
Warum muβ der Mann seine Frau schützen? Und wie kann Mann? Es ist sehr schwer, aber bringt er viel Freude und Liebe. Er kummert sich um seine Frau auf viele Arten: er arbeitet und verdient Geld für das Haus; er spricht gut über sie; er liebt sie und so kann sie seine Gefühle sehen. Wenn alle schief geht, ist der Mann die Person sie zu trösten. Dies sind gute Möglichkeiten siene Frau zu schützen.
Und so was muβ due Frau tun? Sie muβ ihm repektieren und ihm helfen. In diese Utopie, kennen Männer und Frauen ihre Rollen und akzeptieren sie. Dafur, weiβt die Frau was sie tun muβ. Erstmal, muβ sie ihren Mann lieben. Sie kann mit die Kinder im Haus bleiben. Wenn beide einwilligen kann sie arbeiten. Naturlich, heiratet sie ein Mann der denkt wie sie. In schwer Zeit, muβ sie Geld auch verdienen.
Beide wollen Kinder oder nicht. Wenn der eine liebt Kinder und die andere haβt Kinder, sollten sie nicht heiraten! Aber unser Mann und Frau wollen Kinder. Wer spielt wleche Rolle in der Erziehung? Naturlich, muβ die Frau wann das Babie sehr junge ist bleiben bei im. Der Mann muβ seine Frau helfen und ein guter Vater sein. Er kocht, putzt, und die Windeln wechselt, weil er siene Frau liebt. Sie arbeitet wenn die Kind groβer werden, oder auch nicht. Es ist ein Vollzeitjob zu eine Muttie zu sein!

2003-12-12T03:42:00.000Z

Take the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Analyse the text, answering the following questions: What is the idea of nationhood which emerges from the text, and how does this reflect the circumstances of its composition?

A tumultuous, hopeless nation reeling from the worst insult to its sovereignty and might in the period between the two world wars. Such was the picture of Germany in 1926: a large economically devastated land with a proud history which was conversely also a fledgling state that had lost millions of young men and seen more than its share of bloodshed. Such an atmosphere was the perfect breeding ground for such extremist movements as the far-right National Socialist Party or their sworn enemies, the far-left Communist Party as well as for colourful characters such as Horst Wessel. His song, later to become the unofficial German anthem, is very much a product of its time and has become a dated and disdained piece of Nazi propaganda.
The “Horst Wessel Lied” is full of illustrious images of a triumphant, powerful military reflecting the Nazi Party’s structure and philosophy and the worshipful tone is evident. It almost seems as if the text were written explicitly for the purpose of becoming a march-style anthem as when one reads it, there is a very strong rhythm and a pulsating beat. For example, the first line, with eleven syllables, tends to lend a 4/4-style beat with its obvious iams: “Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen.” This mirrors the image the Nazis held of themselves: they were the best hope for the German nation and their ideas naturally brought order.
The poem’s simple and extremely jingoistic style directly reflects the life of its author, Mr. Wessel. By all accounts, he was a low-life and whoremonger, but a devout Nazi supporter. A proud member of the S.A., he believed in the dream of an again proud Germany who would retake its traditional borders as well as extend itself to allow comfortable living space for every German man, woman, and child. By 1926, when Wessel joined, the Nazi Party was an established national political party, though still thuggish in its operation.
Three years after the München Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazis were pursuing legal means to gain power wherein they required every type of propaganda they could muster and Wessel’s Lied fit the bill. His song appeals to the nationalist in its listener and makes strong usage of images of political enemies acting against the greatest good of society. “Kam’raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen/ Marschien im Geist in unsern Reihen mit.” Other extremist groups, especially Communists, did, in fact, live up to this line in that there were often armed conflicts between paramilitary “gangs”. It is somewhat ironic, nevertheless, that Wessel would choose the word “Kameraden” and go on to indict the Communist party within the same sentence. As well, his usage of the word “Geist” is quite indicative of the bombast of this piece. Either he suggests that the intangible spirit of their fallen colleagues march with them in a strictly poetic sense, or else he is insinuating that the actual ghosts walk alongside the men, literally. The latter conjures images of lost and angry souls, questing for the rectification of whatever wrongs were done them in life, relying on their compatriots to take the needed action to bring their souls to peace. It is still a stirring image either way, spurring countless men to take up arms for themselves and their slain companions.
More than anything else, the German people wanted something to believe in which the latter half of the second stanza addresses: “Es schau’n auf’s Hackenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen/ Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot Bricht an[!]” Freiheit? From what, one may ask. It bears remembering that France occupied a large region of the Rhineland as well as the perpetually problematice Alsace-Lorraine Region and Germany was paying the Allies billions and billions in reparations, of which the control of payments was thoroughly under Allied nations’ control. There were checks on the size and power of the German Army and hyperinflation was absolutely catastrophic. The German people were desperate for their country to have freedom to make its own fate and to live under a regime which held its values in common with the people it governed. “Freiheit” is merely a pseudonymn for sovereignty. Of course, then the same must be asked of Brot: why is it so important as to be on the same level as a purely conceptual noun such as Freiheit? Again, economics comes into play as does Wessel’s background. He was a poor man, though educated. At this time, unemployment levels were well over two million men and Wessel was one of the unemployed masses. It was a struggle to survive, let alone thrive. Many people had no idea where their next meal would come from and Wessel was keen to exploit this fact. Therefore, the people hope for the dawn of a new day when they will have both luxury of freedom and the basic necessity of bread.
The idea of the nation is obviously one in which naught but the Nazi Party has power and Hitler’s ideas bring a new utopia to all Germanic peoples. Yet there is an ominousness even amongst the bravado. The current state of the German nation is less than desirable, being referred to as “Die Knechtschaft”, though it is unclear what mechanism is actually enslaving them. Viewed as a German, it is probably the countries party to the Treaty of Versailles, commonly seen as the root of all German ills. Viewed as a Nazi, however, there is much more antipathy towards rival political parties with different views of Germany’s future, such as the Communists and Social Democrats, who clung to the ideals of the Weimar Republic. The Nazis felt that their political rivals were not willing to go far enough to promote the German country’s interests, especially regarding the ethnic ideas of nationality that they held so dear. Wessel, by association, bought into such ideas as the superiority of the “Aryan” people and the inherent inferiority of Jews, Gypsies, and other non-German peoples. A continuation of the previous centuries’ mistrust and fear of aliens, this view of the German nation would come to a head within twenty years.
Wessel’s death was inconsequential; he was merely a foot soldier for the Nazi Party. What did matter, though, was the legacy of his death and how it was used to promote the Nazi cause, exactly like his song. That he was lauded as a martyr and given a very public funeral is of extreme importance because it brought public sympathy to the party (while the remains of a martyr were defiled by Communists throwing stones) and helped them to win the hearts of the German people nation-wide. His song is similar. Frankly, it is an unimpressive poem, but in the hands of Joseph Goebbels, it became a patriotic anthem, a march at the heart of the Nazi cult. (Ironically, this poem is all show and no heart!)
Clearly, the “Horst Wessel Lied” does not endure as a piece of brilliant literature and few would argue such a thing; however, it is a highly invaluable text in understanding the era it come from. It helps to propagate Nazi ideals and shows the extreme devotion and ardent belief held by many people at the time who were seduced by the National Socialist platform and its charismatic leaders. The hopes for the future, discontent with the present, extreme political battles, and hero-worship of Adolph Hitler were all intrinsic to 1920’s society as well as Wessel’s poem. Much like the official national anthem, the “Horst Wessel Lied” can never step out of the shadow of Nazi Germany and shall forever be tainted with the evils of the era, promulgated as millions sang along to its lyrics.

(1279 words)

2003-12-03T13:05:00.000Z

2. Evaluate the economic case for and against global legalisation of all drugs.

The fight to protect society from its own excesses, especially in regards to drugs, has always been a major issue for the better part of the last century. Throughout this time, the “war on drugs” has been fought and continues to rage in the public policy arena because it is good for society – or is it? There is a rather vocal growing legion of people who believe that the legalisation of drugs would, in fact, solve many of the worst of society’s drug-related woes. Economically speaking, this concept makes sense.
The first thing of note is that the “war on drugs” is extremely expensive and yet seems to be ineffective in its implementation. Direct funding exceeds $20 billion annually and may reach as high as $50 billion in the United States, all of which comes straight from the taxpayers’ pockets and could be spent on another area of public policy or could remain in consumers’ pockets for spending in the broader economy.
Even more shocking is the fact that, regardless of the funds and programs made available to combat drug-related crime, total use remains constant in many areas and continues to increase in others, especially in regard to the use of marijuana. Anti-drug policy has immense costs with few comparable returns: there are still turf wars between dealers, theft to help an addict fund his habit and violence on the part of individuals who may be in an altered state of mind.
Just as disturbing for the economic climate is that criminalisation of drugs encourages the cartelisation of groups as protectionary measures to best turn a profit in the market. This drives out smaller producers who cannot compete with the cartel’s production costs and relatively low marginal costs of production. As well, the cartel boss may not refrain from using violence to keep competitors out of the market due to a lack of legal mechanisms with which to enforce fair trade policy.
This leads to a severely restricted supply as well as a much higher price in the market than would exist under a free system; the price hike is so massive that it is estimated that the street price of heroin is up to 100 times its actual value. This makes the price higher to the average consumer and will drive many out of the market, but a core of users with inelastic demand will continue to purchase these goods due to the addictive nature of some drugs and the lack of substitute goods available which means these people are extreme price-takers and are held captive by producers who often demand highly inflated prices.
Legalisation would lead to accurate means of tracking users and therefore more accurate knowledge of the effects of drugs, which are currently sketchy at best. Drugs, especially soft ones such as marijuana or cocaine, could be taxable and therefore a boost to the national income or could be used as a vice-tax with which to implement demand-side policy to discourage people from taking drugs in the first place. There would also be governmental regulations, which would effectively make drugs safer by standardising purity and quality of substances, removing yet another negative externality of users’ lives being put in danger of accidental overdose or due to impure substances.
In response to fears that legalisation would lead to an epidemic of people suddenly surging towards drugs, it must be reiterated that, on the whole, people are sensible and make decisions based upon information they have at the time. In a health-obsessed culture, it appears highly unlikely that droves of people will suddenly disregard years of warnings and negative policies and haphazardly expose themselves to dangerous substances.
Prices would decline which would lead to higher demand because the price shift would be coupled with fewer external costs and negative externalities such as the fear of fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of possessions or gangsterism amongst dealers. This is, of course, the rationale used by opponents of legalisation: an increase in usage would be less than desirable. These increases, however, would be relatively minimal because demand is not linear and historically there have always been checks on the usage of drugs increasing, especially as the public is more and more aware of the possible dangers of such drugs.
Even though legalisation of drugs would produce many positive effects including (but not limited to) a return to market prices which would lead to reduction of hyper-inflated profits cartels currently experience and would weaken such groups, bringing competition into the market and fair prices for consumers. It would lead to a clearing of jails and a loosening up of police resources to combat other forms of crime, saving taxpayers billions of pounds annually. Regardless of this, there are still some qualms to be had with the policy of legalisation. First off, even though the government may exaggerate the dangers of drug use, economists tend to underestimate many drugs’ danger. As well, all models point to an increase of drug use, which in itself is an undesirable effect as drugs are still harmful and health treatment for users tends to be expensive. In addition, there is still a question as to which drugs should be legalised, decriminalised, or remain status quo. Socially, it would be unacceptable to legalise all drugs in all places and authorities would likely choose which drugs to define as “soft” enough for normal consumption, retaining a black market for those which are used but would be extra-legal, so all of the negative externalities which are currently associated with drugs would still exist in a microcosm.
Such arguments, while valid, must be weighed versus the alternative of legalisation and the obvious failure of the war on drugs. Comparatively, the case is stronger for the latter from an economic standpoint. There would be fewer negative externalities from illegal trade, which is the main argument at present for prohibition. Legalisation would lead to a safer, more transparent drug industry and the removal of the most dangerous aspects of drug trade and use.

(1000 words)

2003-11-07T14:01:00.000Z

has expanded to also include the bureaucratic aspects of a welfare state, often the state must now use the opposite of violence so as to keep its sense of moral legitimacy. There is little doubt that modern forms of coercion include both the legitimate violence and the more subtle incentives of monetary gain or increased power and prestige. Yet the state is undermined in that it must respond to such a globalised culture and therefore cannot always be the supreme limit of all legislation or activities because supranational organisations have been ceded such authority. Now, the most pressing issue is that of the future relevance of the state: can it keep its legitimacy and authority even in today’s multi-lateral climate? The British state has evidenced that yes, it can, but a delicate balance must be struck and ultimately, the roles of both the state and the supranational structure must be redefined. The individual freedoms enjoyed by the citizen and the state that the British hold most dear must be upheld.

(1437 words)

2003-11-07T14:00:00.000Z

“The English have a well-developed sense of individual personal freedom which at its most dogmatic says: ‘I will obey the law only because I choose to do so. And only then because it either makes sense or there is no good reason not to - given that I am the ultimate judge of both conditions.’”# Though the above statement was never intended to make a political statement, it perfectly details the modern condition of what Max Weber termed “legitimate violence” of the state and its consequent effect on a citizens relation to the state and its laws. The modern British state wields supreme power and authority within the its territory; it is questionable, however, as to what degree the state still retains legitimacy within the minds of British subjects and, more importantly, how those legitimate uses of force have changed through time. Ultimately, the amount of violence the state may exercise without disenfranchising the electorate has markedly decreased in the past century and even within the past few decades due to both internal and external pressures.
When Max Weber delivered his lecture series on science and politics in 1918, he coined the term “legitimate violence”, but was careful not to leave that as the only defining characteristic for the state for it is also territorial, sovereign, and has permanence. The latter three characteristics hinge on the fact that “the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent that the state permits it”.# Within the domain of the United Kingdom, this force often takes the form of the police, military, or beauracracy, but is rarely violent in the literal sense of the word on an every basis. No longer do soldiers roam the streets or have the right to demand quarter or may the state threaten to take a person’s life or cause physical harm.
Each of these institutions has received its power from Parliament which “appears to enjoy unlimited legal power: it can make, amend, and repeal any law it wishes.”# the House of Commons, especially, stands in a unique position to push any legislation that it wishes through into law with few checks upon its power. The fact that the executive and the judiciary have their highest forms in the person of the Prime Minister and the High Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Session which are all Parliamentary offices# leads one to question how the nation is to keep tabs on its government and to hold it responsible for its actions in regards to questionable legislation. (Obviously, being a democracy, the government must respond to public sentiment, but inter-governmental checks remain non-existent.)
These legislative acts often refer to rules of conduct for citizens and so have direct repercussions on their lives. Laws about trespassing, stealing, gambling, drinking, harming another person or animal, speeding, licensing fees, hunting, owning a weapon and getting married would hold no sway if not for the simple fact that anyone who disobeys these laws is subject to some sort of punishment, whether material or physical. The “machinery of punishment” may include “the police, courts, prisons, and even the gallows”³, though the British state has given the latter deterrant up for any number of reasons. It is felt by many people that the modern state does not need capital punishment anymore for the simple fact that it is no longer an accepted “legitimate violence” - ie, not even the state has the right to take a life, making the denial of a person’s life that much more horrific. Past tragedies in the form of corporal punishment have also been abolished, caused by a questioning of how effective of a deterant public flogging or boiling someone in oil is in reducing crime. The question, however, is not so much whether the state needs the power of capital and corporal punishment; rather the question is why it gave that power up in the first place: was is because of internal pressures of the electorate, demanding more humane treatement of the accused and convicted or was it international pressure put on the UK to conform to modern European sensibilities? If the change came from within, the state’s devotion to human rights would be seen as most satisfactory and a victory of the democratic process. If the change came from outside and was pushed upon the British state, the question of sovereignty is raised.
As well, it must be asked if the institution of a state can continue to exist in the contemporary climate of supranational governance and the rule of international law. Heywood equates sovereignty of a state to the freedom of a nation³ and the British people feel this tug of war more keenly than most other European nations. Though John Major chaired the sessions in February 1992 that produced the Maastrict Treaty which solidified the plans for a common European currency, he was obliged to negotiate an “opt-out” clause to appease the myriad Euro-sceptics back home.4 Though a full member of the European Union, Britain retains its currency as a symbol of national pride, a means of demonstrating its sovereignty, and as a precautionary measure to protect its economy. Though Tony Blair may wish to join the Euro, current sentiment demands the retention of the pound sterling. The British state controls monetary policy and is able to quickly react to swings in the economic climate as well as set trade policy. Both of these powers would be dramatically lessened if the UK were to switch to the Euro and the state would lose one of its most potent forms of coercion.
Though it may not be “violence” in the traditional sense, by manipulating trade, the UK can further its interests abroad, rewarding those states and corporations which please it through negotiating contracts or better trade agreements and punishing those who go against the UK’s interests by removing vital aid, trade, or contractss and sending them elsewhere. Undoubtedly, this is the perogative of the state but if a supranational organisation such as the WTO or EU were to limit such powers (as they have), it potentially chips away at the state’s authority. This has, in fact, already happened in Britain, as is evidenced in 1988 when the Merchant Shipping Act was declared to be illegal by the European Court of Justice, effectively depriving the UK of its power to make international trade laws.# This poses a problem: previously the state held the monopoly on “legitimate violence” and enforced its will through legislation and enforcement of laws with no one to answer to beyond the electorate. Now, policies must not counter-act international law set forth by treaties such as the Maastrict Treaty or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ratified by the UK. British people now vote on both their MP s in Westminster and their MEP s in Strasbourg and Brussels. Does this mean that the British people have handed legitimacy and sovereignty to a greater European body with no chance of bringing it back into the realm of the British state? The best answer to that question at the moment for Britons can only be wait and see and react appropriately whenever the topic of sovereignty comes to a head, as it inevitably does.
Overall, the idea of “legitimate violence” brings more and more questions to mind simply because of the consequences of such a term and the changing role of the state. Because the state is not merely a mechanism to protect the lives of its subjects or to keep life from being “nasty, brutish, and short”, as Hobbes described, and

2003-10-30T12:38:00.000Z

Oh, this was fun....

My life is rated PG-13.
What is your life rated?

Go try it out!

2003-09-25T14:10:00.000+01:00

Wow. I've three times in a row failed to actually post everything that I type, and as this is a Swedish computer, I can't figure out how to search files for the saved previous blog that I had. Ah well.

today is a job-hunting day and I've been very bad and am squandering it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. ah well. Actually, I really need to do a few other things, so I'll publish this blog so you don't think I'm a complete dork and then shall return later with full details of my adventures! Yay!!!

See ya!

2003-09-21T11:02:00.000+01:00

BLAST IT!! I just erased the entirety of my last blog. Alright, here's a summation as I'm peeved now and shold get off of Poh-Leng's computer: I'm in London, it's lovely, there was a mix-up with the airlines but all's well. I'll be in Edinburgh on Monday and will be staying at Nathans. Fun is to be had by all. Yay yay. ERm.... London Rocks. I feel like an insignificant ant, and Edgeware Road is cool.

That's about it. I'll write more later.

2003-05-18T22:22:00.000+01:00

Hee hee.... It's been ages since I've posted, I'm so sorry! I look at what I wrote and I have to laugh, as it's rather silly and all that due to the changes in my situation. So, I still haven't decided if I should go to Edinburgh or Hamline. To make matters worse, I've run the numbers, and Edinburgh will be cheaper than I thought. I've got $4,750 in scholarships for the first year of school...and $2,000 of that is renewable, which is great. Now, I've thrown another kink into the equation, howlightly onever.

You see, I've off and started a relationship last month and it's almost scary how quickly we've gotten so close. His name's Tim and he's a sophomore at UAA...but fortunately only slightly older than me because he graduated from school a year early. I feel so young and naive around him, though, which rather sucks, frankly. But I think I'm learning to deal with it. The reason why this is a bit of a kink is that now I really don't want to leave him, but he can't afford to transfer to another school... and if I go to Scotland, than I'll be a continent and an ocean away and I really need him. I need him here, with me. Right now. Right here.

I don't know what to do. I want to go to Edinburgh so badly... but I almost physically cannot leave Tim. I just don't think I can. *sigh*

Plus, there's the random drama business that tends to occur with other guys... At Sean's birthday party, there were three guys aside from Tim who were trying to "get with me"... which led to some fun little things happening. I dunno. I feel bad for anyone who tries to get my attention, as I'm a rather incurable flirt and things just get out of hand sometimes with other people getting the wrong idea... but at least I'm not a tease. Just a flirt. ;-) But ah well. I've got a lot of thinking to doat this point.

2003-03-24T01:52:00.000Z

Life is too full of damned decisions. I hate it. Scholarship folders... where to go to university....Edinburgh or Hamline?

Where will I be happier?

I also can't decide if I want to be more of a socialiser or a studier when I get to university. only 1600 people at Hamline, so I know that if I fell on my face, it'd be obvious and I probably wouldn't get the chance to save myself. (ie, standards would be higher and workload very rigourous). But at Edinburgh, I'd be one of 10,000... a bit larger and therefore more able to blend into the crowd (as well and an American *can* in Scotland)... and the rigour isn't as tough. Plus there's the master's in 4 years instead of 6. *sigh*

That, and what do I do about Nathan?

2003-02-20T07:36:00.000Z

btw, see my other rants at Panda Pawprints. It's kept up by a bunch of us old friends from back in Middle School... damn, we've gotten old!

2003-02-20T07:28:00.000Z

So, I've finally broken down and gotten one of my own. I'll probably be as delinquent posting here as I've been anywhere. Ah well.

I just need to figure life out! I've got a mother I love dearly, but she's driving me up a wall. She's in in a massive dry drunk for the last week and she won't staop calling all the men who've ever hurt her - especially Dave, her 2nd ex-husband. Grrr. She talked to him for like an hour tonight and I seriously wanted to slap her. But I didn't. I just sat there, looking like some lazy oaf on the couch.

In the past, I'd have grabbed the phone from her and hung up on him myself, but I'm moving beyond that.

Sean (my brother) and I have resolved that if she continues with this assinine behaviour, we're moving out. Back to Anchorage. We'd survive, I'd wager. Dad thinks it's a good idea, but of course is keeping it hush-hush for us. I love that Dad can actually live like a human being and *not* make himself intensely miserable because other people are happy. I want to be like Dad in that respect.

Life's not all bad - I guess I'm just sick of driving every morning at 6am to go to my stinkin' high school, getting home at insanely late hours, and then not getting enough sleep or time to do homework. Or read. Or crochet... Or anything I used to do. I'm just always so tired and fatigued as of late... It will pass, though. I do like the house and I love taking Phantom (my dog) out for a jaunt in the neighbourhood. Lots and lots of fun.

Well, that's enough for one day's posting. As if anyone's reading this.....