The state should monitor the actions of people within its borders if such actions pose a threat to the national security. A nation's security is of an utmost importance to a country as it ensures the survivability of a country. It is with this reason that the government should have a right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders. This refers to individuals who engage in terrorist activities with the aim of conducting terrorist attacks in the country to instill fear in others. E.g.: In Singapore, the government monitored the actions of Mas Selamat when the police received tip off of his plan to bomb the Singapore Changi Airport in 2002, where he was eventually arrested.
The state should have a right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders, especially during stressful times such as war; as long as its monitoring does not result in the violation of human rights. Possessing the highest power, the state has jurisdiction in virtually all areas that society has to deal with. Hence, it does have the right to monitor the actions of people. In times of war, famine, disease and violent acts will arise. In such times, the general public is unable to control and detain the situation, thus requiring the intervention of a higher power. For example, the state should have the right to implement a curfew during a war. This helps keep the people safe and reduces the chance of a violent protest or riot that may result in more deaths. Eg: During the 2010 clash between the red shirts and the yellow shirts in Thailand, the state intervened and imposed a curfew to monitor the actions of the Thais. This action has prevented more deaths and kept the people safe. Thus, the state should intervene in times of war to help control the situation.
Government should not have the right to monitor actions of people when it comes to choosing one's life partner. Individuals should be given the freedom to decide with whom they would want to spend the rest of...
...“Peopleshouldhave the right to choose when they die”
This statement creates many interesting points. It is written about taking your own life, be it suicide or euthanasia. On that subject it has clearly been written by a person with pro-choice ideals because it states “shouldhave the right to choose.” This gives the meaning that they believe it is a basic humanright to have a choice. A further meaning behind this wording is in the phrase “shouldhave” this shows that the subject of choosing when to die is not currently legal but is likely to be widely debatable. The fact that the statement is not specific to a group of people, (be it old or terminally ill) or the mode of death, (euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide) makes it a very open statement. Because of that fact it can be interpreted in many ways. It can be debated and could be argued by both sides.
Many people will disagree with this statement because of many reasons. For example a first argument would be that many pain killing drugs can now help a patient die with dignity. Painkillers can relieve patients’ pain to the extent that they can have a long and suffering free life right until the end. On the other hand people could counter this by saying that the painkillers can...
...The Internet: HowFarHave We Come?
Have you ever thought about how different everyday life would be if we did not have the Internet? Whether or not we realize it, the Internet plays numerous roles in our lives, both important and not important. From business and medical fields to students and the elderly, most, if not all of us use the Internet daily in some aspect. Without the Internet, businesses wouldn’t be able to connect with distant customers, and the medical field would not be able to record or obtain information as easily doctors and nurses. Nor would we be able to connect with friends and family around the world in seconds, students would not have the ability to complete educational tasks, or the media be able to publish articles online for people to see immediately after it happens.
First of all, without the Internet, a lot of businesses would not be doing as well as they are today. In today’s world, many businesses either thrive on Internet sales and deals, or only sell their products over the Internet. Since this development has come to the forefront in recent years, businesses have been able to connect with more customers, which is increasing their sales. Companies have the ability to purchase products from other companies for their benefit. Whether it is big or small businesses, Internet sales have...
...Should Companies Have The Right To Monitor Employees’ E-mails And Phone Conversations?
Employees watch out when using communication, whether e-mail or phone, at work, you never know who may be listening. Should companies have the right to monitor employees’ e-mails and phone conversation? Most studies believe that they, employers, do have theright to monitor the e-mail and phone conversations of their employees, as long as they are notified of the fact. There is a tremendous amount of literature on this issue but it all seems to lean towards the right of the employers.
The most notable law enacted law that allows employee monitoring was in 1986. It was the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (it.ojp.gov). Although the actual service providers are not allowed to monitor communications it does allow employees to monitor communications. Most cases brought to court by employees have a tendency to be decided with the employer, reiterating the employer’s right to monitor communications. There was a federal bill in 1993 to 1995 that would have made it illegal for employers to monitor employee communication without first notifying them (privacyrights.org). But, it failed; it didn’t even...
...private life of famous
people which are shown in the media day by day. Some people believe that famous
peoplehave the right to privacy like other normal people. On the other hand, other claim
that celebrities have chosen public life so they cannot ask for privacy. This essay will
argue that famous peopleshould not have theright to privacy simply because they are
public’s idol and living a public life make them more famous.
The first reason why celebrities were not allowed to live a private life is that they
are public’s idol. To begin with, famous people were often idols of many people from
older to younger, from adult to teenager. In everybody’s mind, they are good person in
anyway. Therefore, they have to prove themselves by allowing everyone know all things
in their lives. For example, Justin Bieber, who is a famous singer and a good idol of many
children and teenager in USA. He is not afraid of being hounded by paparazzi about his
love with Selena Gomez, who is also well-known singer and actress, because he thinks
he does not do anything bad. In addition, when celebrities become public’s idols, their
fans will admire and love them. Many fans want to have a good life like them so they
...Howfar can it be argued that the activities of the Ku Klux Klan was the most important obstacle to the achievements of Civil Rights for Black people up to 1941?
Many obstacles -such as Jim Crow Laws, the Supreme Court decision and lack of political influence- prevented Black Americans from gaining equal rights up to 1941. However, the biggest obstacle they faced was that of the Ku Klux Klan; an intimidating, influential and secret organisation and its only concern was White supremacy.
The KKK was founded in the 1860s to stop Blacks from achieving equal rights. They would terrorise anyone who wasn’t a part of the W.A.S.P way of life but they specifically targeted Black people, the Klan would torture and beat people. They still saw Blacks as slaves and therefore regarded them as second class citizens. The Klan was a secret organisation and so no-one knew exactly how many members there actually were, but it was estimated at around 3 million members by 1925 and a large number of members worked in law enforcement or in very politically powerful positions. This meant that it wasn’t difficult to stop any laws being passed that might have helped Blacks to secure Civil rights.
Jim Crow laws, designed to maintain white superiority and completely legal, were another big reason that prevented Blacks from gaining Civil...
...Economic sustainability- howfarshould the state involve itself in the world of business?
Definitions and conceptual understanding.
o It is the use of a bevy of strategies for in order to employ all of the existing resources optimally.
o A responsible and beneficial balance that can be achieved over the longer term would be the most ideal form of economic sustainability.
o Within the context of a business, economic sustainability usually involves using the variety of assets of the company efficiently to allow it to continue functioning profitability over time.
o Usually the stateshould not intervene in the world of business, namely the Forex market(Greenback, Euros), commodities market(Nymex Crude, Gold, Sliver), stock market(NYSE Euronext, STI) and the banking, forestry industries. This is to enable the free market to operate freely using the forces of supply and demand.
o However, in the moment of a financial crisis, the state would usually intervene to save the entire market from crashing, avoiding market crisis and hence a depression. This, if were to happen, would result in massive unemployment and widespread discontent with the government.
o Hence, the government should only intervene in times of crisis.
o The stateshould also involve itself in the operations of CRUCIAL DAY-TO-DAY running business of...
...People with terminal illnesses shouldhave the right to doctor assisted suicide
Assisted suicide should be allowed as a valid option for anyone who is suffering a terminal illness. People don’t want to live uncomfortably or without use of all the functions that they currently possess. Individuals should be allowed to make the decisions on what is right or wrong for them, and that includes living or dying. Thus, peopleshould be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right and dignity of people to determine their own fate.
For many people who with terminal or chronic illnesses that cause them constant severe pain may want to die peacefully instead of suffering until they succumb to their illness. It not only calls on doctors to make an unreliable prediction, but prescribes a pointless time limit: The longer the life expectancy the greater the patient's suffering. The essential elements for legislation are that the condition is irremediable by medical treatment and the suffering is intolerable to the patient (Eric Gargett). Actually, it should not be up to a doctor or other family members as to whether a person should be...
...loving thing. Furthermore, they do not have to continue both ordinary and extraordinary treatments.
The Quaker Christians hold opposite beliefs to Roman Catholics as they permit all forms of euthanasia due to situation ethics. They believe that each situation is different and the agape principle “Love thy neighbour as thyself” includes showing mercy to the terminally ill. They say that euthanasia can be the most loving action in some situations. They also support companies such as Dignitas who are an assisted suicide clinic.
My beliefs follow the Protestant beliefs which I also believe are the strongest views because there are various flaws with the Roman Catholic argument. With the Roman Catholic views, the law of double effect allows for indirect active euthanasia, e.g. Morphene overdoses will shorten life length. This is allowed under the law of double effect because the intention is good, to relieve pain, but the unintended action, shortening life, is a side effect. This is illegal for doctors to do and if found out, the doctors in charge could lose their rights to practice. Also, like the Quakers, I think that Active euthanasia should be made legal for various reasons because many people commit active euthanasia however if they were found out, they may be heavily prosecuted because assisting suicide is illegal. Another reason is that some diseases are so painful to bear...