Political Science

Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism in Government Provided Services

Healthcare
Based on the ideology of liberalism, healthcare services provided by the government should allow freedom of choice for each individual.  The individual would have the option to decide on which treatments and medical procedures to receive, even if those procedures may be controversial, such as abortion or cosmetic surgery.  Healthcare services will support the ideology of liberalism as long as they allow for these freedoms.

Conservatives, on the other hand support the viewpoint that government provided healthcare services must adhere to traditional values.  Healthcare must not provide unethical, immoral or anti-Christian services such as elective abortion exceptions may be made if the life of the mother is at stake.  If the government agrees to uphold traditional Christian values, then conservatives will consider keeping an open mind.  However, conservatives in general believe that the government should leave healthcare alone and let the healthcare industry take care of itself like it has in the past.

The ideology of socialisms supports a makeover in healthcare services.  Socialists believe we need a change.  If that means government intervention in healthcare, so be it.  If that means universal healthcare, then that is even better.   Wealthy people are getting quality health care, say the socialists what about the rest of us  We need a fair distribution of goods and services in this country.

Education
Students should be provided with a well-rounded education, from the liberalism ideology.  Since the government is providing a free education through high school, then the government should make sure the curriculum promotes individual freedoms in addition to democracy.  Children need to learn how to think for themselves and analyze what they are being taught.  They should be taught sex-education and given access to, and information about birth control.

Based on the conservatives, the liberals have it all wrong.  There is no place for sex education in schools.  If the government permits this in the curriculum it must teach abstinence only.  Otherwise, that would be promoting promiscuity in our young people.  Schools should teach reading, writing, math and science.  American children are not going to be able to compete unless we get our schools back on track.  Taking prayer out of schools made things worse.

Socialism supports the viewpoint that we should all have equal access and opportunities in education.  It is great that education is free through high school, but what about college  Everyone should be able to attend, and if there was a fair distribution of wealth then more people could attend.

Introduction
Nationalism and sovereignty remain closely related in that the push for an ethnic identity as a nation precedes the demand for self determination. Nationalism is a movement by like minded people seeking to organize themselves as a unitary entity based on common attributes. They agitate for recognition from those who rule over them and in most cases rebel against the authorities. Recent examples include ethnic nationalism in the former Yugoslavia which led to the breakup of the state into seven mini states.

Sovereignty is defined as the right of a nation state to be recognized as a legal entity. This right entails the acceptance of the nations government as the supreme authority in all matters affecting the state. International treaties establish the inviolability of the nations borders and its territorial integrity. A sovereign state has the right to exist, and acts of aggression by enemy forces aimed at altering existing borders are illegal under international law. Laws passed by the authorities are binding on any person residing in the land unless such laws contradict international law which supersedes local statues.

Nationalism has seen the birth of most nation states in the world. The French revolution overthrew the monarchical system and established the nation state which recognized the masses as the prime force in the land. Power was transferred from the monarchy to the people who then set up democratic structures to govern themselves. In colonial Africa, the nationalist movement gained momentum with the granting of independence to states like Ethiopia and Ghana (Gellner, 2003). Other African people began to demand their nation states based on the territorial boundaries drawn up by the colonialists. Early 60s saw the liberation and granting of independence to most states and the establishment of governments ran by the local black populations.

During the cold war, African governments supported either the USA or USSR depending on which power gave them the most assistance. At times superpower influence was so strong that local governments were literally controlled from Moscow or Washington. In a bid to reassert their sovereignty, African, Pacific and Asian states formed the non- aligned movement. This movement was an attempt to reaffirm the member states independence from either bloc and ensure the adoption of neutral policies with respect to international relations (Delanty, 2006). By speaking with one voice, the Non- Aligned Movement (NAM) achieved modest success in various matters such as the independence of Angola, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and in ensuring the imposition of sanctions in white South Africa. Arguably, the NAM was a form of nationalism by weak states with a common interest in their own survival and the preservation of their interests.

Ethnic cleansing is negative aspect of nationalism which has led to two major genocides in the last two decades. In the former Yugoslavia, Serb and Croatian communities attempted to eliminate each other from their spheres of influence. Thousands of people perished as Serb force purged Croatian civilians from Serb controlled land and vice versa. Their actions were informed by the desire to have a nation composed of one community.

Colonial boundaries in Rwanda and Burundi lumped together the Hutu and Tutsi communities despite traditional rivalries. Rwanda exploded into a frenzy of killing after the downing of the presidential jet killed the reigning and top government officials. Within a month of the plane crash, Hutu militias had murdered over 1 million Tutsi people in revenge attacks and attempts at ethnic cleansing.

Sovereignty issues led to the First Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait claiming it as the 19th province of Iraq. International pressure and fear of setting a precedent of impunity with regard to territorial integrity galvanized the world to act against Iraq. Within a few months the US led coalition had liberated Kuwait and restored the ruling monarch to his throne. Israel has been on the defensive since its declaration of independence. Arab nations opposed to the establishment of an Israeli state have contributed to the tensions in the region. Palestinian people uprooted from their lands by the Israelis demand a state of their own in the occupied west bank. These issues have caused tremendous loss of life and property as both protagonists war over the disputed lands.

IMF and World Bank economic prescriptions for sustained growth during the 1990s, commonly known as structural adjustment polices (SAPs), led to the collapse of many developing countries economies.  Unpopular decisions like cutting down on public employment and disposing of state enterprises forced a number of governments to recapitulate on their agreements. Faced with a restless citizenry, and growing impatience with reforms that were not leading to higher growth rates, the ruling elite decided to abandon the SAPs in the name of sovereignty. This move won them local support and admiration in the eyes on the governed.

The invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam by the US forces in conjunction with British forces raise questions of sovereignty. It set a bad precedent where a nation can ignore international concerns and invade another country to remove its sitting president. The US committed an international crime by removing from power an elected head of state and installing its own puppet regime. By failing to respect Iraqis choice of leader, US actions have rubbished the concept of sovereignty with regard to supreme local authority.

Nationalism and sovereignty provide the basis for world order and peaceful coexistence. Nation states are the precursor to sovereign entities and exist to further the interests of those living in particular regions. It is the responsibility of world bodies and regional groupings to ensure that negative nationalism is contained and crimes against humanity are prevented by channeling the energies of nationalist movements in the right direction (Held, 2003). Ethnic nationalism and diversity can coexist provided the leaders appreciate the valuable contribution each community has to offer. Political stability and peace are dependent on the respect for sovereignty. Without such respect, a situation of total anarchy would prevail with nation attacking nation in a bid to annex another countrys lands.

In conclusion, nationalism can contribute to the liberation of oppressed peoples or degenerate into a pogrom against weak minorities. Sovereignty is an important aspect of international relations because it defines the relationship between states and contains imperialist tendencies. Without respect for sovereignty, international relations would be characterized by endless wars and conflicts

The rationale behind punishments is that it can deter people from taking to crimes or committing them. When crimes are not punished, everyone would indulge in crime and be benefited by harming their victims.  When punishments appropriate for the crimes are in place, people would think before engaging in such acts of crime. The threat of a punishment and its likely implementation would cause people to assess the risks of the crime and its gains, against the punishments. When punishments are severe, people are more likely to refrain from committing the crime. When the threat of punishment is effective and fully implemented, it serves a huge purpose of reducing the occurrence of future crimes  (Law.jrank, 2008). When the society punishes the perpetrator, it is presumed to have restored morality. Punishments are more directed at offsetting the gains or pleasure sought from the act of crime and not to make up for the loss or trauma of suffered by the victim. No amount of punishments can reverse the crime and the effects of the crime committed. Although the society has realized that only punishments could deter criminals, the situation has come when the need and morality of harsh punishments need to be debated. Capital punishment or death penalty is today a widely debated punishment.

Although many developing countries have put an end to it, a large number of countries including the United States still have them in their law books (DGER, 2007). It needs to be emphasized here that while the European Union requires abolishment of the death penalty as a condition for its membership, the US has only re-imposed it, on grounds that the no-death penalty state has only emboldened criminals to commit heinous crimes. The Eight Amendment of the Constitution, which became effective in 1971, is directed at preventing unusual and cruel punishments. However the Supreme Court refused to view death penalty as an unusual punishment. In 1976, hearing the case of Greg vs. Georgia, 428 US 153, the Supreme Court observed that the death penalty is crucial in serving two social needs namely retribution and deterrence of social crimes. The Court projected capital punishment as societys expression in condemning horribly offensive conduct. The Supreme Court also observed that while studies do not convince that capital punishments is an effective deterrence compared to lesser punishments, there are no convincing studies refuting this too (Palmer, 1998).

With the execution of Luis Monge on June 2, 1967 and the declining pubic opinion for death penalty, the death penalty was considered a violation of the Eight Amendment and banned throughout the US subsequent to the case Furman vs. Georgia (1972 408 US 238). It was however introduced on July 2, 1976 after guidelines and directions were issued to judges as to the grounds on which a death sentence can be pronounced (Delfino  and Day, 2008). Utah became the first state to reinstate the death penalty when it executed Gary Gilmore by a firing squad. Currently about 36 states, the federal government and the military incorporate death penalty in their punishments. However rape of an adult woman does not attract capital punishment, which was evident in Coker vs. Georgia (1977) 433 US. 584. The venue of the crime committed can thus make a vast difference of life and death to the perpetrator, since some states are more likely to impose the death penalty than others.

In 1994, the death penalty was introduced for sixty new offenses for the first time under the Federal Death Penalty Act. The death penalty was introduced under a new chapter 228 of Title 18 of the United States law code.  The sections appropriate under it are attributed to the codes 3591-3598. Signed by the then President Bill Clinton, these new offenses fetching death penalty include murder of federal officials, serious drug offenses and also treason and espionage. The death penalty is also handed over for any attempted murder undertaken or ordered by any leader of a drug mafia to stall a drug trafficking investigation or prosecution (Schabas, 1997). Death penalty under the new law was introduced as an optional punishment for seven kinds of planned and intentionally carried out murders including killing of a rape victim or a police officer.

The costs associated with capital punishments are enormous. It must be remembered here that last year Governor Martin OMalley had argued before the Maryland Senate that death penalty need to be abolished in order to cut costs. He noted that the costs associated with the capital cases were about three times of those homicide cases where there is no death penalty (Urbina, 2009). Capital cases costs more as the trials are longer, needing more lawyers and expert witnesses, with the cases themselves having multiple appeals. Many other states too have lawmakers arguing in the same way and there are plenty of chances for revoking capital punishments in several states too. In New Mexico, lawmakers supporting the abolishment of capital punishment point out that despite the higher costs, many defendants finally end up with life sentence.

Death penalty indeed runs into several years, even in the military. When Maj. Malik Nadal Hasans case came up, law enforcement officials anticipated a long trial. Hassan had killed thirteen people when he fired indiscriminately at the Fort Hood processing center in Texas. The military court requires the 12-member jury to unanimously give death penalty, which should ultimately be signed by the president. Hasan is entitled to a military defense attorney free of costs and even has the option of claiming insanity.   Michelle Lindo McCluer of the National Institute of Military Justice at Washington College of Law suggests that appeals in the military domain, like its civilian counterpart can stretch for decades (Searcey D et al, 2009).

When an individual is sentenced to death, it normally takes several years before the actual execution. The convicted person meanwhile is housed in the death row, which is the housing reserved for prisoners awaiting death. Awaiting death itself a horrible experience, which is never considered as an extra punishment. Supporters and advocates of the death penalty say that the fear of death penalty can refrain people from indulging in heinous crimes. However it has been pointed out by human rights activists that the occurrence of crime warranting the death penalty is much less in countries without death penalty, than where it is imposed. There is an increasing public support for the abolishment of the death penalty, wanting the society to look into other ways of crime prevention. Relying only on killing criminals to reduce crime is not in line with societal development. Criminals would get emboldened when they know that they would be sentenced to death for the crime committed, and that there is no hope. The society doesnt gain by executing a murderer. By executing a murderer we only prove that murder is a very heinous crime and the only appropriate punishment is committing the same on the offender. The society has a moral responsibility of protecting its members and looking after their welfare, in the best possible way. However, in its efforts to ensure these, the society should not break its own principles.

The handing over of death sentences is also not uniform throughout the world. Some countries like the Islamic countries impose it very stringently. Death sentences are handed down without proper investigations and judicial procedures too. The erratic nature of these punishments is evident from the fact that many Islamic countries forgive the offenders when the family of the victim forgives them. In most cases the perpetrators are the relatives themselves who carry out honor killings on their women folk. Death penalties are handed over for issues like abandoning religion, prostitution and drug smuggling (Brea, 2008). It should be noted here that before the US Supreme Court had struck down juvenile death penalty in 2002, there were over 22 relevant executions in the country.

It is increasingly perceived that imposing death penalty reflects the societys, particularly the law enforcement personnels weakness and inhumanity. We carry out the reciprocative act, in a more inhuman way than the crime itself. Not only are the state officials present to witness the execution as if it was a privileged entertainment, we also invite the family of the victim to join them. We forget that the family of the criminal is undergoing an immense plight, coping up with the fact that their loved one is to be executed. The lengthy, planned, collaborated circumstance under which the perpetrator is losing his life is totally different from the situations in which the victim died. Countries have varying execution methods from hanging, firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection and sometimes even public stoning. Not all executions go well as intended. Several executions had been carried out where the procedure turned faulty leading to severe injuries on the face and body of the criminal, requiring postponement of the event. The electric chair malfunctioning in particular has caused burns and charring of the victim on many occasions. The trauma both physical and mental borne by the criminal is definitely not part of his punishments. The barbaric side of the episode is the wanting to still go ahead and complete the execution.

Its high time that the people responsible for preventing crimes seek other effective ways of preventing crime rather than by killing criminals. All criminals are part of our society and should not be eliminated to ensure the safety of the rest. We need to give them hope, which would only refrain them from such further activity. When they see no hope, it only aggravates the situation for themselves and thus for the rest of the society. Judicial and social reforms must be appropriately implemented for preventing heinous crimes, rather than capital punishment. Opponents of capital punishment feel that living a life in anticipation of death is itself a torture. Any person awaiting an imminent death suffers much more than his victim. Consider the plight of a person who has been sentenced to death for homicide. The killing could have occurred instantly or result from temporary loss of sanity, which the perpetrator may repent later.  When offered a death sentence, the criminal apart from repenting his crime is also pained by his own death sentence. Unlike all other punishments, the death penalty cannot be reversed and the accused set free. History holds evidence of last minute cancellation of death sentences due to lack of evidence or proper procedures, when subjected to case review. Today there are many past executions, which still hold doubt if the executed person, was indeed the real perpetrator. While the opponents of death punishment in the US hope and work for its abolishment, somewhere among the solitary, high security, death rows of the US, prisoners ponder over ebbing of their lives.

For quite a long time, political philosophers have concerned themselves with the question of religion in politics and vice versa. One thing that seems very certain however is that, most of them agree there should be a clear demarcation between the two. In the past, religion and politics seemed to interfere with each other when either seemed to claim authority over the other. Religion derives its authority from a source totally different from politics, and the two should not be confused. It is quite true however, that religion affects the way politics is conducted, to a large extent. Both Plato and Locke dealt with this issue in a very broad way. In The Republic, Platos Socrates addresses this issue in book II and III in his critique of Homeric gods and heroes, while Locke on the other hand provides an extensive ground for toleration among the various Christian groups as well as the separation of religion and politics in his famous Letter on Toleration. Socrates noted that there was a tendency by the poets, particularly Homer, to impose things upon the gods, such that the gods were capable of both evil and good. This was a major reason for Socrates attack on Homer. Locke on the other hand condemned the hypocrisy of the various Christian groups in their attempt to force people to accept their position. His letter was an attempt to state the importance of tolerating each other amid the differences. This study has as its main focus the comparison of these two thinkers, and the establishment of what each as religions greatest challenge to political life. Furthermore, it seeks to discuss what each considers as the appropriate way of dealing with these challenges.

Plato and Locke
One of the major issues that Socrates dealt with in Book II and III of The Republic was the critique of the poets representation of falsities as though they were representations of reality. Homer is one such poet who seems to have irritated Socrates most. During his time, poems played a very important role in as far as the education of the young people was concerned. The poets also had a lot of political issues addressed in their pieces of work. According to Socrates, at stake were the young people whom he saw as having been of prime significance in the establishment of an ideal state. He contended that in order to properly discern the good, these young people needed to be instructed in the ways of the good. Homer was one of those whose teachings tended to mislead the young people. He felt that it was important to represent in accurate way, all matters pertaining the gods. The contention in Socrates was that religion was used to advance evil deeds and thoughts. He felt that the poets worsened the situation by their writings. Homer for instance was quoted as having claimed that it was possible to move the gods by prayer. This meant that people could do all sorts of evils in the knowledge that they can always go to the gods in prayers and sacrifice (Plato 390a). In other words, Socrates was arguing that the teachings of the poets in as far as religion is concerned were misleading. Noteworthy is the fact that the discourse in this case was aimed at the establishment of an ideal republic. He remarked that it was difficult to attain this when the poets were teaching that justice and moderation were the fair things to do, while on the other hand claiming that it was easier to do the opposite. He notes that the poets made it clear that injustice was sweeter and easier to acquire. In so doing, Socrates felt that Homer was giving strength to the vicious side of live at the expense of the virtuous (Plato 364d). If a digression is not made from the original goal of the discourse, one realizes that such claims were very damaging if the ideals of the new state are anything to go by. At the same time, the poets also tended to identify with those who were well to do, regardless of their evil nature. Furthermore, they tended to look down upon the poor and the just. Socrates further reckoned that these poets recognized these lowly ones as being better than the wealthy and evil, yet they are not willing to identify with them, a fact does a lot of damage to the importance of justice. This placed a lot of emphasis on the goodness of injustice. In other words, although the poets acknowledged the importance of justice, they were not ready to accept it as the way to go, because inwardly they were weak and unwilling to stand by it.

Socrates asserted that these people were guilty of misrepresenting the gods, because they argued that the gods were responsible for the misfortunes and ill fates of the good as well as the bad people. Furthermore, they argued that the gods were also responsible for the success and good fortunes of the bad that also happened to be rich and mighty. Homer had claimed that there were two jars that stood on the threshold of Zeus. One of these was filled with good and the other with evil. The gods could give a mixture of the evil and the good to some, to others either of them (Plato 379d). Socrates argued that such doctrines must not be taught to the young people if the vision of an ideal republic was to be realized. The claim that the divine was the cause of all things was accordingly dismantled. It was not possible for the gods to author evil things, because it would contradict their nature.

The poets had further claimed that the gods had been occasionally involved in fights among themselves, and that such fights had their effect on human beings. Socrates saw this as having been totally misleading. Furthermore, the gods are depicted in Book III as easily altering their forms in order to appear in disguise to the human persons. These gods are capable of deceptive tricks, as well as having been responsible of sending messages in dreams to mortals (Plato 382c). This led Socrates into a serious onslaught of the poets. The danger that Socrates saw in this argument was that if such teaching was propagated, it would bring about discord and be a ground for conflict among the young people

The religious men of the time also assured the rich that it was the gods who made it possible for them to enjoy whatever riches they had. This meant that the gods were at the service of these rich people. It was possible, according to the heroes, to obtain purification and deliverance, both in life and in death, through sacrifices and rites. This was seen as a gross understatement of the reality of the gods, which made it possible for the people to further their unjust practices. For this reason, Socrates saw the need to correct the errors caused by Homer and other poets. He argued that these were responsible for grossly misleading the young people. He further proposed that all such teachings would be eliminated from the education system in the republic, especially with regard to the young people.

In Book III, Socrates took offense with Homer for the unfair representation of Achilles. Homer had considered him as a person who loved money, one who was seen in bad light by the gods. Homer further said that Achilles was distraught and was filled with lamentation in Hades. Socrates was very angry with this reference to a person who had been considered such a noble individual. He noted that this was one of the heroes of the city and as such, it was important to set him as a role model to the young. Representing him as Homer did was surely not going to allow such a possibility (Plato 391c). The danger with this Homeric representation was that it was very likely to lead the young people, who were being groomed in order to assume protective roles, into cowardly attitudes.

The poets had further advanced that those that suffered punishment were wretched and that as such this was an act of the gods. He felt that it was necessary to see this kind of punishment as a beneficial thing to the ones undergoing it (Plato 380a). Socrates further argues that all poetry must be at the service of virtue. In other words, it must not encourage fear or cowardice. This meant that poetry that presented the heroes wailing and lamenting over what had befallen them was out of place in the ideal state.

It was also wrong, according to Socrates, for these poets to imitate the heroes or the gods suffering any of the extremities of emotions, because these were incapable of emotional excesses of any kind. At the same time, they do not suffer conflict in the spiritual realm. In this case, Socrates is simply saying that the world of tragedy is not acceptable and no further representation of the same should be allowed, because it is both false and misleading. Socrates and others were involved in a discourse regarding the ideal state. In order to effectively achieve this, they young people would need to be strongly motivated, because only could take up roles in this ideal state. It was important therefore that the heroes that are presented to them be presented as having been positively so. The images of the gods also need be positive, because that was their true nature.

It would be wrong in the ideal republic therefore, for a poet to say that great majorities of the happy people are unjust, or that majority of the wretched are unjust. It would be further unacceptable that people argue for injustice on account of getting away with it. Homer was simply unaccepted by Socrates because he imitated all things, that is, both good and bad. Only those who imitated the good could be accepted into the ideal state.

Like Socrates, Locke understood that there was the possibility of the religious being forced into the political. In his letter, Locke noted that the prime role of religion was the direction of human persons towards the attainment of piety and virtue. In order to sufficiently do this, Locke asserted that it was necessary for Christians to have more than a surface conviction of what they believed in. During his time, Locke had noted that Christians were acting in cruel manner towards other Christians, under the pretence that it was the will of God. The zealots for instance, punished others with greater brutality than they did their own. Therefore, there was need for a uniform application of the rules governing the various belief systems. He saw that since there were a number of churches, it was necessary to exercise tolerance, rather than assuming that one was better than the other. Everyone has a right to join whatever religious group they will, and no one should be judge over the other. This is important because these judgments were responsible for the cruelties that were advanced in the name of God.
A major concern for him was that there was a contradiction of some sorts especially with regard to the use of force while at the same time claiming to be under the guidance of charity and love. Locke noted that those who did not subscribe to a similar line of thought were stripped of their estates and other rights. These things are considered out of the place in as far as the glory of God was concerned. It was also apparent that the people suffered greatly at the hands of particular groups, which negatively affected the pure image of the church, as well as the end which is salvation of the individual souls. People were during Lockes time compelled, with a sword and fire in one hand and with the scripture on the other, to follow the dictates of religion. This he felt constituted a grave error because unlike the civil authority which has the capacity to invoke punishment for civil offenses, religious authorities lacked in this. Furthermore, it was not possible to force a belief to someone, because it would be meaningless for their salvation.

Locke saw that some Christians tended to pretentiously cover their unchristian cruelty as well as their spirits of persecution under the blanket of obedience to the laws. He further asserted that it was proper to remind oneself that Christ demanded persecution as a cost of discipleship, but did not declare that the church should be the administrator of this persecution. Furthermore, Locke saw a lot of interference by the religion on matters of the state. This was brought about by the religious conviction that each was the right religion, which prompted each to force the other to adopt its doctrines, even at the political level.

To this extent, there is some convergence with Socrates thought in that both saw that the religious authorities tended to misrepresent the divine. Both seemed to attack the claim that the divine was capable of evil things. Both of them seem to oppose the claim that material things are acquired as a reward from the gods, because as such, the implication would be that the gods are capable of atrocities and evil. It is not possible according to both Socrates and Locke, for evil and good to persist in God, because as such, this goes not only against the principle of non contradiction, but also the nature of God.

Further, Locke argued that the claim that the Church should only be considered as such if it existed in a certain apostolic hierarchy was considered unimportant. The reasons for this according to him was that Christ did not, by means of any edict, impose such law as the condition for the foundation of the Church.

Locke noted that there should be no one imposing ecclesiastical sanctions against persons who do not follow their rule. This is because, essentially, everyone enjoyed a certain degree of liberty. However, Locke also noted that due to the fact that people voluntarily subscribed to the membership of various churches, it was within the power of those churches to exercise intolerance to members who did not abide with the laws that they voluntarily subscribed to. However, this intolerance was to be exercised only to the extent of excommunication of those members. There should be no other form of punishment imposed upon that member, because no one has the authority to do that.

He asserted that even when individuals differ in terms of religion, they ought to exercise tolerance among each other. This equally applies to the various churches. This is important in that it allows for peace, friendship and equity among peoples. This seems quite similar with the Socratic argument for a unity among the gods. Since the various Christian groups worshiped the same God, it was unreasonable, in Lockes view, to constantly engage in warfare with each other.

In order to ensure toleration, Locke asserted that the division between the religious and the civil ought to be very clear (Locke 26). In order for harmony to be realized, each ought to stay within their mandate. Worth noting is the fact that Locke lived during a time when a lot of religious persecution was being experienced across the world, especially with the introduction of the reformation theology. He believed that only such a move would ensure peaceful co-existence. Locke offered several reasons why there should be a clear separation of religion and state. Socrates had earlier argued that it was important for each individual to do only what was within their jurisdiction and expertise. This meant that when each did what they were best suited to, there would be a peaceful co-existence among all persons. Lockes argument was aimed at ensuring harmonious co-existence among the Christians and the non Christians. When a particular religion seeks supremacy over another, the danger is that each tends to fight for its own space, leading to unnecessary bloodshed and discord. This was the reason why Locke proposed tolerance among the various religions.

The first argument presented by Locke against the interference of religion by the magistrate is that, there is no single individual with God given authority to force others into their religion. The magistrate himself has a duty to seek after his own salvation. Basically, what Locke is saying is that religion demands mental persuasion otherwise belief would be impossible (Locke 26). He argued that such a worship that is a result of coercion, rather than genuine conviction amounts to a contempt of the divine majesty of God.

Another argument for separation of the two is that, the magistrate has only external force, which is insufficient to internally persuade the people to conversion. Even if he were by means of this force, to confiscate an individuals entire estate, it would not be enough to internally persuade that individual into joining their religion. Conversion as such requires good will of the person, not penalties (Locke 27).

Locke further argues that even if an imposition of penalties were capable of bringing about conversion, it still would be insufficient for the salvation of souls. He further argues that the religion of the court offered no hope for heaven, which is the destiny of religion (Locke 27). If the civil authorities were allowed to use their power to force conversion, it would allow for an individual country taking over the role of converting the world. Locke noted that if such a thing was allowed to happen, the notion of God would be grievously tainted. He concluded thus, that the civil governments enjoyed power only in as far as the civil interest of men was concerned and as such did not enjoy any power over anyone respecting matters of the salvation of souls.

Conclusion
Both Socrates and Locke were concerned with ways of eliminating the misleading information by religious teachers, which in several ways affected society. In Socratic time, this affected the establishment of an ideal state. During Lockes time, it was a major source of religious intolerance further advancing grave cruelty among Christians. A major issues that Socrates dealt with in Book II and III of The Republic was the critique of the poets representation of falsities as though they were representations of reality. This was seen as having been detrimental to the establishment of the considered ideal state. Politics could not be separated from virtue. During Socrates time, poetry was considered as having been extremely important for the education of the young people. A number of issues have been raised, on the basis of which, Socrates found fault with Homer. Although this poet was considered great by his contemporaries and his predecessors, Socrates found him to have misled the people by misrepresenting the gods and the heroes. Socrates saw as having been at stake the young people whom he saw as having been of prime significance in the establishment of an ideal state. If the young people are to understand and appreciate the good, it was necessary for them not to be instructed in contradicting ways, otherwise the ideal state would not have enough people to take care of the varying needs.

Locke saw the need for a separation between the state and religion. It was noted that there was a lot of intolerance among Christians during his time. He argued that it was necessary to tolerate each other, because all religions could rightly claim orthodoxy, and as such there would be no criteria to establish which one was the legitimate religion. This is the reason why religion needed to be very clearly separated from the state. The civil authorities did not enjoy any powers in religious matters, as long as the religious practices were not restricted in secular matters. Likewise, the various religions did not have any civic authority over either their members or other individuals. Therefore, both would agree that if everyone remained within their jurisdictions, there would be a peaceful co-existence among the peoples.

Dr. Lee Williams is one of the top senior environmental consultants of Environmental Solutions, Inc. He has several years of experience in this field and is still pushing further on the boundaries of environmental protection. I can say that Dr. Williams is still at a young age of thirty-five because most top consultants today are in their early forties and up. Dr. Williams considers himself as an environmental protection professional because aside from his obvious job position, he has dealt with the environment since the start of his college life. After which he took up Masters which is still on the environmental field and lastly, he also took up PhD which still focuses on the environment. This alone showcases a man of complete knowledge regarding the environment and this also strengthens his foundation of environmental science and protection. Overall, Dr. Williams has accumulated years and years of experience in relation to what he does  which is to evaluate the environment and suggest ways on how to protect and conserve it.

Professionally, Dr. Williams has 7 years of experience. He also worked for two years after finishing his Masteral degree in 1997 and afterwards he decided to take up PhD in 1999 which is still at the Stanford University. He started out as a junior consultant in the company and after two years he was promoted to a senior consultant. Dr. Williams reiterates that to be able to qualify for his job one has to have a solid foundation of knowledge regarding the environment  and that is at least a Master of Science degree. I was lucky that I was able to interview Dr. Williams. First, I searched in the yellow pages and tried out to I call their office and inquired if I can interview one of their consultants. Fortunately, they allowed me and I was also fortunate because Dr. Williams doesnt have any appointments that day.

Job Responsibilities
Dr Williams further discussed that as a senior consultant one has to be very responsible, knowledgeable and prudent. Furthermore, his primary duty is to evaluate the risk assessments and recommendations of their junior consultants with regards to company projects. He also goes to the different project areas and does his own evaluation and recommendation. He also presents their evaluation and coordinates with top government officials and company officials for the implementation of the recommendations. Luckily for this huge job task, he has his team of junior consultants to help him out. Dr. Williams also trains their junior consultant on a quarterly basis. He also represents his company in meetings, government projects and sometimes international conventions.

On a normal day, Dr. Williams evaluates the risk assessments and recommendations of his junior consultants and also talks to clients. He considers his duties important and strives for perfections always. What he likes most is that he is never bored of what he does. He has been working with the environmental field since college and he loves it up today. The only thing that Dr. Williams doesnt love about his job is dealing with hard headed private company officials who do not follow environmental guidelines. These situations show the real hard thing about environmental protection. Luckily, he has helpful government agencies to work with and support him and his company with the implementation and evaluation of each environmental risk. These agencies include EPA and each states Department of Public Health. They also team up for trainings and projects.

Future of the Profession
Dr. Williams further explained that a career in environmental science and protection would also be good. Since climate change is one of the big issues today, he said that future industrial and residential areas will need proper assessment and evaluation for maintenance and construction  so obviously theres big job opportunity there. As for today, he acknowledged the fact that that trend for environmental related career is increasing. Evidence to this is that the Environmental Solutions, Inc. alone never runs out of projects and this means they need additional consultants every year. This is indeed true, the trend is increasing rapidly and one survey from a premier directory of education revealed that jobs related to the environment such as an environmental engineer is in the top five of the next generations top careers

Environmental engineers play an important role in every community. They oversee new construction and renovation, assuring the preservation of natural resources and the safety of residents.   HYPERLINK httpwww.worldwidelearn.comonline-education-guidetop-ten-job-trends.htm httpwww.worldwidelearn.comonline-education-guidetop-ten-job-trends.htm

Personal Reactions
After the interview was done and Dr. Williams and I were discussing random environmental topics and some things related to his job. He also thanked me because my interview gave him a quick reflection on what he has accomplished. Dr. Williams said that it was also a good feeling to have shared his thoughts and experiences. I was also very fortunate to have interviewed Dr. Williams. There were even questions for me that I was not really anticipating to be asked but our discussion gave me another perspective on the issues and the real situation that we have today. Dr Williams is really an excellent representative of his profession. Well, first of all he is very qualified. He has a PhD, M.S and worked in the EPA for two years. After that he had been exposed to a lot of environment related work experiences since becoming a junior consultant and moreover after being promoted to senior consultant. He is indeed has a solid backbone for the industry of environmental protection and conservation.

We finished the interview and I left the room with a lot of respect for Dr. Williams. This area of environmental protection and safety appeals really appeals to me. I love this field because it allows me to do get a job and protect the environment as well while learning along the way and also to think that the job opportunities are ever increasing for this field then who would want to take another path and with people like Dr. Williams along the way I am also confident that we will resolve the worlds environmental problems.

Division of power among different sections of the government is one of the basic principles of the United States Constitution. The constitution separates the power of the state into three branches The Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judiciary.

Another aspect to the devolution of power is limits to the powers held by the Federation, power that is delegated to the states.

One of the important powers that are held to be the exclusive power of the Federation is the overall control of the economy of the nation. The power of economic control is held by the Federation, mainly through what are called the Contract Clause and the Commerce Clause of the constitution.
In the Contract Clause states are forbidden from issuing currency
No State shall.... grant letters of marquee and reprisal coin money emit bills of credit (U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. X, Clause I)

The original purpose of this clause was to forbid states from issuing bills of attainder absolving individuals from paying their debts (Levy, Karst,  Mahoney, 1986). However the wider affect of the clause it to grant the Federal government the exclusive control over monetary affairs of the country.
The Commerce Clause grants the Federation, through the Congress, the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, interstate commerce and commerce with Native American tribes (U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. VIII, Clause III).

This is also an important aspect of the economic power of the Federation, since the states may not enter into financial treaties with any foreign nation or amongst each other without the approval of the Federation.

One of the important aspects of the devolvement of power as set in the constitution is the right of the legislative branch to give advice and consent to the treaties with foreign nations and the appointments to public office made by the President (U.S. Constitution. Art. II, Sec. II).

How this advice and consent works has historically been an issue of contention. Nowadays, the tradition is that the President nominates people to positions such as Supreme Court seats, ambassadorial positions, heads of the armed forces etc. These appointees are then brought before the senate and after some questioning by the members of the senate are approved provided that they have the support of at least three-fifths of the members of the senate in sessions of the senate that are called confirmation hearings (Sachs, 2003).

For treaties with foreign nations, a ratification of at least two-thirds of the members of the senate is required. For these too, the treaty is usually signed by the president first and ratified by the senate later (Sachs, 2003).

In a democracy, devolution of power can work only as long the majority approves of it. It is possible for a highly popular individual to be elected into power and then work through the legislature to concentrate all power within themselves (Levy, Karst,  Mahoney, 1986).

To prevent this from happening, the framers of the constitution have made it very difficult to change the basic structure of the government through amendments in the constitution.

Amendments in the constitution can be proposed by the Congress or by a national convention for proposing amendments to the constitution that is proposed by the legislature of at least two-thirds of the states in the Union (U.S. Constitution. Art. V).

The amendments to the constitution require the approval of the legislatures or ratifying conventions of at least two-thirds of the states in the Union to become parts of the constitution (U.S. Constitution. Art. V).

The alternate of ratification by ratifying convention allows the Federation the option of bypassing the state legislatures in times of need.

It is both misleading and extraordinarily ironic that courts are often treated and though of as being detached from politics and therefore insulated from the policy making process.  This is particularly true with respect to federal courts, the United States Supreme Court in particular, and there are valid reasons for these misconceptions of the courts.  First, federal judges are generally given lifetime appointments.  This is a fundamentally different type of job security than is enjoyed by members of the legislative and executive branches of government.  The lifetime appointments enjoyed by most judges in the federal court system are indeed premised in the notion that this type of job security will place federal judges above political disputes and that this separation of politics and the courts main function will encourage and allow federal judges to remain objective and impartial when hearing cases and rendering legal interpretations.  Second, with respect to both federal and state courts, there is a prevailing notion that law is fairly objective and that it can therefore be easily applied to a variety of factual circumstances.  These faulty assumptions, that judges are essentially impartial and that law is quite objective and easily applied, frequently results in the equally faulty conclusions that courts are detached from and therefore do not impact the policy making process in any substantial way.  The reality is that courts at both the federal level and at the state level can and do impact and engage in policy making to a certain extant.

The courts impact and engage in policy making in several different ways.  Some of these ways are effected directly and some are effected indirectly.  Generally speaking, it has been noted that The claim that the political role of courts is tied to structural features of the national governing coalition as a matter of historical description is incontrovertible HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5000838247(Clayton, 2002, p. 70).  Courts impact policy making in the way that judges are selected.  This is true for courts that have elected judges and for courts that have nominated judges with lifetime appointments.  Elected judges, for example, must deeply engage in politics in order to be elected judge of a court.  The public is therefore voting on an anticipated policy-making type of judge and a failure by that judge to administer court proceedings in a certain manner will result in a new judge being elected.  Federal judges, as heated debates over nominations and confirmations clearly demonstrate, are hardly immune from politics quite the contrary, the evidence establishes that federal judges are nominated based on how politicians feel their judicial philosophies will further a certain type of public policy agenda.  Clarence Thomas was motivated in part to further the anti-abortion public policy agenda and the most recent Supreme Court Justice confirmed was expected to further a more liberal and pro-Democrat party public policy agenda.  Experts can reasonably predict how both state and federal courts will resolve a variety of legal issues this has serious implications because under the guise of impartiality, the real politicians in the executive and the legislative branches can issue vague orders and laws in ways that will force contentious issues to be resolved by politically-connected judges rather than by those politicians elected by and accountable to the people.  The courts can overturn acts of the legislature and they can define the balance of power in government.  In sum, the policy making powers of the courts are substantial and pervasive.

It has been argued with respect to the juvenile justice system, and most of the academic literature seems to substantially agree with this argument, that Policies are too often dictated by the aberrational case and controlled by the quick fixes that prosecutors and politicians propose in order to get themselves re-elected rather than upon non-political solutions HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5001890764(Geraghty  Drizin, 1999, p. 363).  This places those people working within the juvenile justice in an extraordinarily awkward position because the juvenile justice experts are too often compelled by external factors to administer juvenile justice in a manner that they believe is inconsistent with the purpose of juvenile justice and harmful to juveniles passing through the juvenile justice system.  Some of the main complaints in this respect, as it pertains to the juvenile justice system having certain policy making roles and functions thrust upon it, relate to such issues as trying juveniles as adults and emphasizing incarceration over treatment and rehabilitation.  Rather than assuming policy making responsibility, for example, a number of state legislatures have created vague laws requiring prosecutors and judges in the juvenile justice system to determine when and how juveniles can be tried and sentenced as adults.  How these prosecutors and judges respond to this type of delegation of quasi-legislative power, in terms of creating legal precedents, constitutes an effective articulation and implementation of policy through legislative means that should be articulated and enacted by legislative means.  The juvenile justice system, like the court systems more generally, have become increasingly politicized and vested with policy making powers far beyond traditional roles and functions.

If one assumes that children are a valuable resource, that all human beings make mistakes, and that effort should be expended to preserve children as a national resource, then the juvenile justice system as it exists today must be viewed as a substantial failure.  The primary reason for this failure is that the juvenile justice system, compelled by public and political pressure, has become in many ways an administrative agency rather than a justice agency.  More specifically, as has been noted by professionals intimately involved in the juvenile justice system, The potential exists for the continuing marginalization of a segment of society with the capacity to be an asset to society and the right to be an active member of their communities HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5035363198(Morrison  Epps, 2002, p. 229).  This marginalization is the result of an increasingly hands-off philosophy in which society and politicians would rather lock up juveniles and throw away the proverbial key than spend the time and the money in an effort to help or otherwise rehabilitate juveniles who have violated social norms.  One might fairly remove the justice reference and instead characterize these modern institutions as juvenile processing systems because that is increasingly how these systems are functioning.  Youth and society deserve more than this type of neglectful processing, treatment and rehabilitation can achieve long term benefits despite short term costs in money and time, and the staggeringly high numbers of juveniles incarcerated in both juvenile and adult facilities, when compared to other countries in the world, clearly demonstrates that the juvenile justice system is not serving its justice functions as they relate to helping steer juveniles toward more productive futures as adults.