Write an essay to answer one of questions below. You pick which one you want to do.
The intention of these questions is to (1) demonstrate your knowledge of the material (the authors and concepts) and (2) show you have processed them. So, your answers should do both of those things. The questions are big, ponderous, meaty questions with lots of room for analysis and personal interpretation. Be careful not to only provide your opinion of things without support from texts. And, be careful not to only provide rundowns of the text with no analysis. Authors are limited to those on the list below.
Be sure to define any ambiguous terms within the context of your essay. For example, do not glibly use a term like “justice” and assume everyone has the same definition of justice. Instead, include how you define the term, i.e.: In order for a state to be just it must treat all citizens equally under the law and provide adequate due process for citizens accused of a crime.
You may write in first or third person, whichever best expresses your thoughts, but be consistent throughout.
Answer the central questions underlined in each prompt
Make a clear and convincing argument
Supported argument thoroughly by using texts of the authors on the list.
Analyzed, rather than merely summarizing texts used.
List of Authors:
Locke ,Hobbes ,Mill, Rousseau, Lipset, Przeworski, Mann, Dahl, de Tocqueville, Diamond, Miller, Horowitz, Alchian, Bellah, Jefferson, de Condorcet, Dewey, Truman, Mackie, Waldon, Habermas, Foucault, Connolly, Mouffe, Held.
Questions:
1. Is the United States of America in 2015 a liberal democracy? If yes, was there a time in history when the country was not a liberal democracy but now we are? Or, did the country used to be a liberal democracy and now it is something else? Is it yet to fully be a liberal democracy? This question is wide open for you to apply your interpretation in the answer. However, you should use four or more authors on the syllabus to defend and explain your answer. Much depends on how you define liberal democracy (using the texts of course) and how strictly a state must adhere to your criteria. Remember, no state perfectly exemplifies any ideal. No categorical label perfectly fits a sate at any given time. So, you’ll need to be specific and detailed in your analysis. Build your case and convince me of your opinion. You will probably need to analyze several authors to make a convincing argument.
2. We are told form the time we are very young that the value of democracy is that it offers freedom. We are also constantly told in political discourse that various people or things or laws or whatever threaten freedom. What is this, “freedom”? How do you define freedom? No state allows its citizens to do whatever they want with no limits. No state could ever fully satisfy every citizen’s needs. No state can eliminate all crime and poverty nor keep its citizens perfectly safe. What does it mean to be “free” in the context of a government-citizen relationship? Are states that are more democratic necessarily freer? Why or why not? Use at least four authors from the list to explain your opinion and carefully circumscribe your definition of freedom. Then build your case that freedom is or is not more prevalent within a democracy.
3. We have seen how difficult it is to enact the political will of the majority while protecting the individual rights of its citizens. Rights are often asserted as trumps to political discourse and courts are usually left with the task of delineating rights. We live in an era in which security cameras are ubiquitous, most everyone carries a video camera in their pocket, and the government can see detailed images using satellites and drones. The Federal Government collects and stores inconceivably large amounts of data on its citizens, allowing it to monitor them more precisely than ever before. Some worry that a right to privacy is being eroded. In order for a state to be democratic, does it need to protect a right to privacy? Why or why not? Carefully explain why a right to privacy is or is not necessary, its limits, and the role of the state in protecting or not protecting that right. Convince the reader of your analysis using at least four authors from the list. Explain supplementary issues such as the source of rights (God? Law? Courts? Something else?) And the proper role of the judiciary in protecting a right. Use the texts to build a convincing argument for or against a right to privacy.
If you have any questions fell free to ask, thank you
