Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses whether Hitler was a strong dictator or not. The writer finds that if one believes a dictator's strength to be defined by their level of administrative control of the state, it can be argued that Hitler was a weak dictator. The writer also finds that if one believes a dictator's strength is determined by their ideological following, Hitler again was a strong dictator. The writer concludes that whether Hitler was a weak dictator or not is entirely dependent on the individual's belief in what constitutes a strong or weak dictator.

From the Paper
"Under Nazi rule, Hitler led Germany to total war and to genocidal actions against both Russia and the Jewish nation. These were state actions of the most severe nature. That Hitler was Germany's dictator is hard, if not impossible, to deny. Whether Hitler was a strong dictator or a weak dictator, however, is an intensely debated question. In the absence of having lived as Hitler or at the least within the very upper echelons of Nazi leadership, one can only truly speculate based on limited primary sources, the level of Hitler's dictatorial strength during his dictatorship. Some, such as Hans Mommsen in his piece 'Hitler's Stellung im Nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem' and Martin Broszat through his text 'The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the internal structure of the Third Reich', have argued conclusively that Hitler was somewhat of a weak dictator, with the true power of the Nazi state lying in fragmented decision making processes dispersed throughout the state."

Tags:nazi, german, fascism, genocide, dictatorship, adolf

Abstract
This essay examines two aspects of Marx's philosophy; firstly, his view of human nature and, secondly, why he is critical of the ideas of human rights and political rights and emancipation. The paper argues that Marx?s view of human nature underpins his thought and work and shows that Marx is critical of human rights and political rights and emancipation because he believes there to be a greater goal.

Tags:nature, human, rights

Abstract
This paper analyzes whether the political theory of negative freedom is a persuasive argument. It looks at the underlying concept of negative freedom and its interpretation, and the opposing views of negative freedom. It concludes that although a flawed argument, it is supported by solid theories, therefore is persuasive.

From the Paper
"The concept of freedom is a core value of society, many believing that a greater amount of freedom will lead to a greater and more fulfilling lifestyle. As a result the concept has been subject to a range of philosophical discussions, in particular the balancing of freedom and order. For example, by limiting freedom through laws which prohibit certain actions such as murder, greater freedom is enjoyed by other members of society. Mill (1982) even suggested that intervention by the state is only viable where one persons actions would cause harm to another. Negative freedom is the dominant concept of liberals, distinguished to positive freedom by Berlin (1969) in his article "Two Concepts of Liberty". Negative freedom refers to "the sphere of action within which an individual is left alone to do or be whatever he or she may want to do or be" (Carter, 2002). Through close examination of this concept, it's interpretation and opposing views of freedom, it's validity as a "persuasive" theory can be inferred."

Tags:berlin, hobbes, liberty, mill, political, politics, science, theories

Abstract
This paper contends that as Australia is a liberal democracy, voluntary voting is desirable. The paper argues this by stating the positive liberal democratic effects that a voluntary voting system would have such as
drastically increasing overall political activity, enhancing the current political system by making it more democratic in nature and the advancement of the fundamental rights of Australia's citizens.

From the Paper
"Far from decreasing political activity, voluntary voting would in fact increase political activity. This would be primarily caused by two major effects resulting from people no longer having to vote for the better of multiple parties, but rather only voting when a party shows itself as worthy of the effort. Firstly, parties and party supporters would be forced to become more involved in the local issues of the people and the community in order to motivate the electorate to vote for them. Secondly, campaigning would become just as prominent in safe seats as it is in marginal seats, as the number of votes from safe seats would no longer be guaranteed. When one considers that current party election efforts focus primarily not just on marginal seats but on swinging marginal seats, which make up only 7% of the population, it's obvious that the resulting increase in political activity would be drastic. "

Tags:democracy, liberalism, electorate, citizens

Abstract
The paper explains how Rawls' theory of justice originates in the hypothesis of an 'original position'. The paper further explains how for Rawls, a fair social organisation must be derived from a fair initial agreement. The paper shows how Rawls' system, by authorising the state to interfere with the individuals' properties for the sake of social justice, clearly places the ideal of equality before that of liberty.

Outline:
A Theory of Justice Originated in the Hypothesis of an 'Original Position'
A Fair Social Organisation Derived from a Fair Initial Agreement
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The traditional notion of 'state of nature' preceding the signature of the social contract, developed in particular by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, gives Rawls the ground to develop his theory of justice. However, he differentiates himself from the tradition by calling this initial state 'original position' and modifying its features. Whereas the hypothetical characteristic of the contract is not always obvious in the works of his predecessors, Rawls clearly states that the original position is an artificial model strictly conceived as a device for thinking: no original position ever really existed, but it serves as a matrix to simplify reality and put into evidence solutions that can then be adapted to the real world."

Tags:distribution, liberty, equality, fairness

Abstract
This paper examines how communism is a type of government where wealth and property are owned in common and production and labour are shared equally among the people. It also examines how socialism is the belief that the wealth of a country should be among all its citizens. In contrast, it looks at how democracies are multiparty political systems that rest on the principle of rule by the people.

Outline
Communism/Socialism vs. Democracy
Future Recommendations for Both Systems
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The father of communism, Marx believed that capitalism was an ineffective form of government in which wealth is not distributed fairly or properly. He believed that the working class would eventually overthrow the ruling class and that the working class would then set up a socialist form of government in which the government, not individuals, owned the means of production. Marx believed that this form of government would result in complete freedom with social economic equality for all people (as cited in Maddox G. 2000, p16). Both socialism and communism as they exist today have proved to be ineffective forms of government. Socialists try to achieve for society something that is impossible because of human nature: a utopian society where wealth is not attained by hard work but distributed equally by the government."

Tags:marx, class, capitalism, mill

Abstract
This essays discusses how the three elements of citizenship, as described by T.H. Marshall in his text 'Citizenship and Social Class', are incompatible with capitalism. The paper ultimately describes how capitalism has no interest in sustaining civil, political and social rights. The paper also uses graphs.

From the Paper
"Citizenship and capitalism are inevitably opposed to one another. If citizenship strives to create equality amongst all citizens, then capitalism does the opposite, creating inequalities between the people. By a Marxist definition, capitalism is a mode of production based on the unequal distribution of resources. Citizenship on the other hand is the status of those who are full members of a community (Marshall 1983). Those with citizenship have equal rights and duties (Marshall 1983). Purely by these simple definitions alone, the contradictions are conspicuous between citizenship and capitalism. This essay will discuss why capitalism is incompatible with the three main elements of citizenship those elements being political, social and civil (Marshall 1983), but first comparing the varying definitions and theories relating to citizenship and capitalism."

Tags:liberties, pateman

Abstract
This paper attempts to prove why the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government. It shows how it protects the well-being of the population through its written constitution and how it adapts to the ever-changing society through its democratic system of the people having the power. It also demonstrates how it gives the people a reason to follow the government's decisions through the presence of a monarchy that inspires a sense of community and nationalism.

From the Paper
"One of the major causes for the dissolving of governments is an inability to adapt to the changes and advancements in the world around them. For example, with constant advancements in science causing a decline in religious followers, there is no way a Theocracy could survive. Plato proposed a government that was ruled by the intelligent and although this may seem flawless in theory, the reality is with an ever-changing world around them it could never work. Therefore a good government must be able to meet these changes and advancements, and work with them. A constitutional monarchy does this through following the utilitarian 'greatest good for the greatest number' (Kay 1997) ways of its democratic system. "

Tags:anarchy, aristotle, communism, democracy, john, locke, nationalism, socrates

Abstract
A discussion of negative freedom and whether or not it is a "persuasive" political theory. The paper explores the concept of negative theory, what it means, opposition to the theory, and other related political theories. The paper looks at the writings of John Stuart Mill, Robert Hobbes and many other political commentators of the past and present.

From the Paper
"The concept of freedom is a core value of society, many believing that a greater amount of freedom will lead to a greater and more fulfilling lifestyle. As a result the concept has been subject to a range of philosophical discussions, in particular the balancing of freedom and order. For example, by limiting freedom through laws which prohibit certain actions such as murder, greater freedom is enjoyed by other members of society. Mill (1982) even suggested that intervention by the state is only viable where one persons actions would cause harm to another. Negative freedom is the dominant concept of liberals, distinguished to positive freedom by Berlin (1969) in his article "Two Concepts of Liberty". Negative freedom refers to "the sphere of action within which an individual is left alone to do or be whatever he or she may want to do or be" (Carter, 2002). Through close examination of this concept, it's interpretation and opposing views of freedom, it's validity as a "persuasive" theory can be inferred."

Tags:berlin, Leviathan, true, self, On, Liberty

Abstract
This essay includes a brief description of the founding of the United Nations and then argues in its defense that it is a necessary global force.

From the Paper
"The United Nations began during World War II as a loosely organized confederation of states that had come together in alliance against the threat of German and Japanese imperial power, and as a successor to the failed League of Nations. However, it became a formal organization in 1945, when 46 member states attended the San Francisco Conference, and 51 member states signed the Charter of the United Nations. The principal organs of the Charter are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the Secretariat. The cardinal objective of the Charter is the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security. Through the principal and subsidiary organs, the United Nations is dedicated to carry out and promote "human rights, justice, social progress and better standards of life" all of which lead to a peaceful and healthy international community."

Tags:global, political, armed, forces, war, world, coalition