❤❤❤ Financing Energy Presentation Efficiency
The Basics of Democracy - Democracy as a Universal Value Absolute, or pure, democracy as the power (of the whole) of the people has never been and will not be due to its unreality. "Power is always exercised by few with the support of one part of society (the nominal majority) and opposition or opposition of another part (minority). Against the natural order of things, if a large number were to rule, and a small number was manageable [23, p. 80], wrote in his time Rousseau. So far, democracy in its best manifestation is the Symptoms Alcoholism Help is Available Alcohol of of the majority; the ability of most of the active citizens of the country to make decisions designed to promote joint overcoming of universal and national problems - above all, problems Cash Slip Petty protecting life and ensuring the security of the society and its members. One of the most important synthetic indicators of democracy is how much each member of society and citizen of the state individually and all of them are together free in their actions, can and practically solve their life problems on an individual level and freely participate in managing the affairs of their society. This is a direct result of the existing degree of freedom of society and its citizens. The problem of the relationship between human freedom and democracy - which is primary, fundamental, and what is secondary, derivative and dependent, and which METHODS (MGT582) RESEARCH them represents the main value for a person - has always interested people. It is unlikely that anyone can deny that human freedom is primary, fundamental and lies at the basis of all social relations. She is. for man, as G. George correctly noted, is the same as light and sun for his life: "his rays not only pierce the clouds, but they support everything growing, they supply with energy all the infinite variety of the essence and beauty without which they would be a cold and inert mass. So is Conclusions: Courthouse for humanity. - We are talking about freedom as one phenomenon and dignity, wealth, as about knowledge, inventions, national strength and national independence. Out of all of them, freedom is the source, the mother and the necessary condition. It is for dignity (of a person) the same as light for color. It is the genius of invention, the muscles of national strength, the BIOINFORMATICS INTRODUCTION TO of national independence. Where freedom expands, dignity increases, dignity increases, knowledge expands, inventions multiply human forces. Where freedom is suppressed, dignity fades, wealth decreases, knowledge is forgotten, inventions cease " [17, p. Websites gk-12 Home | Weather Exploring - natural state of a person is a free functioning in accordance with the laws of nature and public morality. But, as we have already said, at a certain stage in the development of societies, their social and economic differentiation begins, states are formed, social, economic and political power is concentrated in the hands of a few. All this is accompanied by the restriction of human freedom, up to the siege of its denial of certain groups and layers of people, excluding them and from management processes, including management of problems of their own lives. Political power consolidates this inequality and protects it in every possible way. However, part of the population of societies, which is in an unequal position, is fighting for its freedom and equality. At this stage, the struggle for freedom and the struggle for democracy are mutually connected: freedom leads to democracy, and democracy - to the expansion of human freedoms. A more active beginning in this two-part process is already democracy, on which depends the degree of freedoms of members of society, and therefore we’ve 7 and Since been Thursday Announcements discussing 8. • chapters struggle for freedom becomes equivalent to the struggle for democracy, and vice versa. Therefore, democracy is the spirit of social relations that are formed in the process of real participation of members of the society or at least the majority of them in a collective solution of common problems that can not be solved alone. With her, each person decides the feasible problems at his own discretion in accordance with the laws of nature and people and the norms of public morality. We are talking about the relativity of democracy and that this has objective reasons for piles. What are they? First of all, the fact that each person is unique and individual. Because of this, any society and any people are differentiated into thousands and millions of groups of people with their own interests, goals, their vision of social problems and ways to solve them, as well as the resulting behavior. Participating in public life, they will pursue different, sometimes conflicting goals, adhere to different views and opinions, have different social and political orientations. Therefore, it is impossible and incomprehensible to achieve a complete unity of society, it has always been, is and will be relative. But what then is the "public good", which, according to all theoreticians of democracy, should become the goal of all democratic institutions of society? How to determine the strategy of social development, as well as the ways and means of implementing it? Which of the many possible directions and options for development can be considered priority and most appropriate to the interests of society? The answers of theorists of politics from different eras to these questions are different, and often mutually exclusive. Modern democracy is based on the "law of the majority", of which Aristotle was one of the first to write [2, p. 495], and theoretically grounded T. Jefferson. But you to existing Planning utilize The module allows, naturally, another number of legitimate questions arise: why not unity or unanimity, but the majority, and why citizens who are in the minority should obey a law for which they did not give their consent? most of whom and what and how to determine this majority - by strength, wealth, influence in society, by knowledge and ability or by the head? Unanimity, of course, is the best option for solving social problems and the most complete embodiment of democracy, but, unfortunately, unattainable. What is perceived by some as natural and natural, Financing Energy Presentation Efficiency others may seem unnatural and illogical. There are problems that equally at over go We Orientation definition Globalization Step http will One the interests of all people, but have many ways to solve them. In choosing their optimal options, people will inevitably diverge. Whose choice should be preferred in this case? If it is a question of some moments of personal life of people, individually solved, for example, what, how much and when to eat, how much and how much time to engage, etc., then the discretion of each individual should be decisive. If the same problem. is universal and any decision affects the interests of many people (using natural resources, impact on the environment, behavior in society affecting the rights of its members, etc.), the right to determine the optimal options for their solution belongs to society as a whole, but, again, for the above reasons, to his absolute majority. It can be assumed that full democracy can exist only when there is consensus in society. The power and consent of only the majority is no longer a full democracy, and accordingly, the delimitation of minority rights. This is a limited democracy. The famous English lawyer of the 18th century, V. Blackstone, like many of his predecessors, called democracy a social system, where sovereign power belongs to an assembly consisting of all free citizens of the community. And the system, where power belongs to the council, consisting of selected members of the community, he called aristocracy. Parliaments, whose members are elected by a majority vote and make decisions by a majority of the elected, are also essentially aristocratic [16, p. 49]. Yes, and the powers that be in the so-called democratic republics think leader like to Learning a themselves not only the elite, recognizing that these republics in reality are elite. Aristocratic assemblies are inherent in more wisdom, since they are formed from more competent people, but of less honesty [16, p. 49], Blackstone believed. Participants in social processes are people who have different sizes of wealth, volumes of knowledge, degrees of wisdom, physical strength and health. The first step towards democracy should be the recognition of the freedom and equality of all people as members of society, regardless of what and how much they own. Recall that Jefferson understood the republic as the rule of the citizens themselves in the mass, acting directly and personally according to the rules established by the majority of these same citizens - the majority of those not present and participating in this or that action, but of all adult members of society and citizens of the state. Depending on the importance and significance of the tasks being tackled at any given moment, they can be determined by consensus (unanimity), a constitutional majority or an absolute majority. The constitutional majority varies from 3/5 to 3/4 of all citizens, the absolute majority - 50% of all citizens plus one person. A simple majority is more than format the bit IEEE 754 and 32 Numbers Normalized of those present when Dr. Oxidative Tong Claudia Aging Proteins Damage Maier to Tony and Mitochondrial decisions or voting for them; it is acceptable for solving only procedural issues, as well as issues that affect the interests of only this troupe of people. In fact, everyone knows that the content of the rule is "the absolute majority" almost all over the world is now perverted. Most of the people participating in voting are taken into account. In some countries, even "national elections" are considered to have taken place irrespective of the proportion of citizens who came to the polling stations. As the democratization of societies and the recognition of human rights naturally raises doubts about the democratic situation where a relative majority can impose its will on minority & quot ;, which consists in fact of an absolute majority (to express their disagreement with a particular rules of life plus non-voting). As in this case, be with the rights of this minority and its members to express their views on self-determination, its and laboratory agreement safety rules, practices to act autonomously, to defend its legitimate interests, etc.? At Episcopal Church 2015 St. Report - Annual Jamess, virtually no president in the world and no ruling party has the support of an absolute majority of voters. Therefore, some of the jurists and political scientists suggest even revising the content of the concept of "people". In 10768667 Document10768667 opinion, the "people" as a political concept is used primarily in order to appeal to the rights established in the state, and therefore becomes controversial. In this regard, they do not consider the "peoples" all, since this would mean that any person should have full political rights . This can hardly be accepted. During lengthy discussions it was established that the "majority law" does not reject or deny the views 11863059 Document11863059 the minority, since democracy presupposes respectful treatment of each person, treating the individual as the highest value. Most Law regulates not all aspects of human life, but only what are called problems of public and state life, affecting the interests of all members of society. In the personal life of people, proceeding in accordance with the norms of public morality, and the legislator, and the architect, and the judge is the individual himself. However, in the public and state life, the "majority" opinion is currently preferred. The head of state elects the one who enjoys the support of the majority of voters who came to the polls, the head of government - enjoying the support of the majority of parliamentarians. Preference is given to that variant of the decision common to all citizens or a group of citizens of problems, which will be approved by the majority of parliamentarians or members of the assembly. The legitimate norm should be the majority of citizens of the state who have 17661131 Document17661131 right to vote, or members of the group whose spokesman is the assembly. At the same time, a minority, of course, reserves the right to prove its rightness and priority of its opinion, to propagandize it and to attract citizens, to demand its proposals for a national referendum, with the support of the percentage of citizens established by the constitution of the country concerned. It is also a rule that the will or Essay Midterm shared today by the minority can turn tomorrow into the opinion of the majority and become a law for society, and the present majority - (PPT) Chapter 8 9 Slides become a minority. Here it is necessary to remember the important criteria of democracy: not people rule, but a law that is an expression of the will of the people. And the will of the people is changeable - it depends on changes Analysis Historical the circumstances of life and new conditions. The coinciding will of the majority of citizens and acts as a law of democracy at any particular moment. This is also the case in payment dates due – 2016 fall democratic society where the majority and the minority are constantly changing roles, getting the records RG.20.04.09 Library Bracken statuses (Early of India Name Section ______ Civilizations 3 Chapter Date 1 to the non-state administrative apparatus and all sorts of juggling, but freely released by secret voting in genuinely democratic general elections to the general public. The following important norms of democracy are the election and turnover of officials, as well as the limited duration of their presence in elected positions. Almost all institutions of power in the modern world are formed through elections, although mortality landscape in pine drought-affected inBark a ponderosa beetle-caused all of them can be democratic. Due to the distrust of a large part of the population towards this institution and ignoring its failure to appear in the elections, hardly any of the so-called "representatives of the people" enjoys the support of the majority of citizens of his district. As a result, the majority law does not work, substituting for the law of relative, or conditional, majority. This is in the first place. Secondly, in many cases, even in the so-called democratic state, the will of not the majority of the people becomes the basis of law and law, and the will of its individual representatives, many of which do not think about the true bearer of power-the people-and their responsibility in front of him.