Political Economic Systems

Unsurprisingly, I mostly agree with liberalism as the best form of an economic system. I believe people should be able to spend and earn money freely, without many restrictions. I believe people should be responsible for their own economic behavior and well-being, and the government should not interfere too much with this freedom. However, I do believe there should be a good balance between how much freedom the people have and how many restrictions the government sets. Finding this balance may be tricky, but if found, it will lead to, in my opinion, a very successful, economically strong nation. Acting freely with money (earning or spending) will lead to competition, which leads to innovation, which produces capitalism, or the system of production that is based on private ownership and free markets. Capitalism, in my opinion, with that right balance, is the key to a healthy economy. Taxation is an area where I'm conflicted. Liberalism states that taxation should be kept to a minimum, but I feel that things are never as simple as that. Now, I don't think people should be taxed everywhere, right and left, but certain taxes are important and helpful. This is an area, again, that needs a careful balance in order to produce success.

I agree that, as the book said, the government should act like a "watchman," overlooking the activities of the economy, making sure they don't get out of hand, but not interfering unless absolutely necessary.

Iran Current Event One

Iran Agrees to Nuclear Inspection

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/iran-nuclear-weapon-inspection (from google news)

After talks and discussion, Iran has agreed to allow UN inspectors to inspect the uranium enrichment plant near Qom. The agreement of this inspection also came during suspicion of alleged Iranian attempts to design a nuclear warhead that would be mounted on long-range missiles. UN inspectors demanded immediate access into the plant, but Iran insisted that the inspection be not until October 25^th. The US and France had insisted that the inspectors be granted access to the facility two weeks after the discovery of the plant. The UN feared that waiting until the 25^th would allow Iran time to conceal key information about its design and ultimate purpose. After talks in Tehran between the UN and Iran, there is prospect of diplomatic resolution of the dispute over Iran's suspect nuclear programs. Relations are moving towards cooperation. US and Iranian officials engaged in first diplomatic, direct talk in thirty years, since the Islamic Revolution. Iran had broken the International Atomic Energy Agency rules in not notifying the agency earlier about the Qom plant. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ELBaradei, however, did not propose any penalties. Though they did agree to inspection, Iran did not agree to completely free and “unfettered” inspection of the nuclear facility at Qom. They insisted they had “sovereign” rights to pursue all aspect of nuclear technology. However, the UN and the US worried about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce and nuclear bomb using enriched uranium

Iran is feeling the pressures of a world in constant globalization and democratization. Iran is being watched by states all over the world, both strong and weak. It is hard not to break under that kind of pressure. This enrichment plant and alleged nuclear warhead is Iran’s way of answering to the pressure of the global environment that surrounds the state. As the world grows “big and bad” around them, they must compete to grow with it. Nuclear warfare is an easily solution for this unstable state. Because of its instability, Iran is possibly feeling insecure in this fast paced world, compared to the powerful states of the UN. With nuclear technology, Iran can bump up its status, in a way, and become more of threat to the rest of the world. Iran is letting everyone know that they are not a state to be taken lightly. But what does this mean to the rest of the world? Understandably, the UN was upset upon discovery of Iran’s enrichment plant and plans for a nuclear warfare. One launched missile from the unstable state could mean disaster. The states of the UN are feeling the current pressure of the globe right now as well, and Iran’s focus on nuclear technology is just another fear and pressure to add to the plate. The US and Russia are arguing for tougher sanctions on Iran, but could that lead to dangerous tensions? Just as things as always are in politics, this is a grey area.

Political Culture

Political Attitude and Ideology

Political Attitude I, personally, find it difficult to just pick one attitude: radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary. If I absolutely had to choose one, however, I would consider myself a liberal. The idea of evolutionary transformation makes sense to me - I don't think change needs to happen in terms of a revolution, but I feel small, gradual changes within the system could be beneficial. Overthrowing a government sounds very negative, very violent, whereas gradual changes are positive and healthy. However, staying stuck in "old ways" is never healthy. As times change, I feel that the government needs to change with it. Though many people are skeptical of change, staying static is never good for a government.

Political Ideology Liberalism is the ideology that makes the most sense to me. I believe the public should hold most of the power over the government, so that everyone has a say in how the government works. Everyone should be free to make decisions and choices. However, I do believe that the government needs to protect the people. The people shouldn't have some much power or free reign that the government has no control and the state collapses. However, I believe the public has the right to make their own political decisions and control their own economic affairs without great government intervention.