Children and adults alike enjoy fairy Essay Example for Free

Children and adults alike enjoy fairy Essay Children and adults alike enjoy fairy tales because, to a certain extent, there are universal themes which make the stories predictable. Three of these themes are parental abandonment, victimization, and the all-important happy ending. Fairy tales provide an escape for the reader and a way to vicariously experience a different kind of life in which anything is possible. The idea of parental abandonment seems an anathema in a children’s story. Nevertheless, Little Red Riding Hood ventures alone into the forest to walk to her grandmother’s house, in spite of the danger presented by the wolf. Snow White and Cinderella’s parents die and leave them with cruel stepmothers. In â€Å"Beauty and the Beast†, Belle is without a mother and her father is a bit of a kook who can’t look after her properly. All of the characters are placed in situations in which they become victims. The three little pigs must protect their homes from a wolf; Little Red Riding Hood must outsmart a wolf who has eaten her grandmother and disguised himself. Cinderella and Snow White, on the other hand, must outsmart their cruel stepmothers in order to find true love. The most common theme in fairy tales (except, of course, for the Grimm versions) is that they have a happy ending. Cinderella and Snow White defeat their stepmothers and marry the prince, Little Red Riding Hood and the three little pigs outsmart the wolves and save themselves from certain death. A fairy tale just isn’t a fairy tale without a happy ending; after all, the story of Cinderella would be less compelling if she had missed the ball and one of her ugly stepsisters had married the prince. â€Å"Beauty and the Beast† would have been less of a fairy tale if Belle’s love hadn’t transformed the Beast.

The Akaka Bill :: essays research papers

The Akaka Bill   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To begin, it is important to recognize, a particular point in time in which Hawaii became a U.S. territory by a one sided act of Congress. The U.S. asked for no consent, treaty, or even any offer of money to the Hawaiians. Starting from this historical point in American and Hawaiian history, many Hawaiian and Native Hawaiian activists push for what they believe is rightfully theirs as the indigenous people of the islands of Hawaii. Independence. When it comes down to independence from the U.S., the Courts and basically the whole government believe that full independence would not work out in any way. This leaves the Hawaiians with two choices to decide from. The native Hawaiians could either keep their stand on full independence which has basically no chance of happening or they could go to the federal government to get the recognition of the relationship that they have available to protect them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice V. Cayetano, the Akaka Bill has arose and passed in Congress due to a sense of compulsion among Hawaiians. The Akaka Bill was enacted into law, in which a majority of Hawaiians eligible to vote selected an entity called, â€Å"lahui† to represent them in negotiations with the federal government for a type of sovereignty that is yet to be determined. According to U.S. court decisions, congress has the absolute authority to expand or reduce the powers of Lahui, just as it has over the American Indians. Therefore, the Akaka Bill does not automatically guarantee sovereignty to the Hawaiian people. Congress must enact a law that authorizes the terms agreed to, once an agreement is reached between Lahui and the government.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Akaka Bill will allow Hawaiian people to exercise self-determination under U.S. law. It will also allow the Hawaiians to have more direct control over their ancestral lands and control of trust assets. Last but not least, the rights of native Hawaiians will have more protection from constitutional challenges.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Since the issues will have a direct impact on the state’s civil and penal laws, jurisdiction over land and resources and other crucial issues, the federal government has invited the State of Hawaii to be a party to negotiations. This paper should help you to better understand the issues that are arising and might arise later due to the actions between Congress and the new Hawaiian entity, Lahui.

Reflections on Libertarianism

Libertarianism As a Christina view, in the beginning of the time, â€Å"For in Him all things were created: things in Heaven and on Earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him† (Colossians 1: 16). Human beings were created by God with one purpose to worship to Him. God knew that the first man and woman were going to fall down in the enemy temptation. That is why He created every single thing perfectly. However, we study the history through the Bible or other kind of books.We will see that few people fallowed that commitment and other people did things that are not pleasing to Him. God hoped to receive worship from them, but it was not like that. God is a gentleman, He never is going to force us to do things that we do not want to do. He gave us freedom or freewill to do whatever we want to and chooses between the good or evil. Every single human’s act will have its reward. As the Scriptures says that there are two ways, a big one and small one. In the big way, many people go in that direction because is easier; however, it drives to the perdition.The small way is the opposite form (Mathew 7: 13-14). The human’s stages start born, growing, reproducing, and dying. While, the people still alive, â€Å"Each mind is a world† (Kay, 1998, p. 163). We do different things from others and we do not care what others think about us because we have libertarianism. What is libertarianism? â€Å"It is a particular account of the metaphysics of human choice† (Stewart, Blocker & Petrik, 2012, p. 154). The libertarianism is also used in philosophy and it can refer to the freedom, liberty, right, and freewill.They are fundamental goods that governments should be extremely slow to restrict them. Long time ago, there were many slaves did not count with those goods, they knew to work for someone. We can imagine that it was hard to live in that time, now we se e different when someone left from the jail and the person is free. He stills happy and he does not want to come back again. As human beings have the knowledge to understand which things are bad and good. Libertarianism has pro and con or for and against.For example, I go to buy a used video game to Game Stop, I am going to buy it because I want it or like it, and I do not care other people think about me. In this example there are both. The pro could be that it is cheaper than the new one, but the con may be does not work well. â€Å"‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive† (Corinthians 10: 23). Libertarianism is based on the principles of Self-Ownership. It means that I have to live my own life and let others live their lives. Self-Ownership is to deny, this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do† (Norquist, 2005). No, other person or group of people, own your life nor do you own the lives of others. For example a person exist in times and it is manifest as; past (product of your life and liberty), present (freedom or rights) and future (life). If we lose the life, then we lose our future. However, if we lose the freedom, then we lose the present or if we lose the product of our life, then we lose the past that includes our knowledge. The product if our life and our liberty is our property.Property is the fruit of our labor and the product of the time, talents, and energy. As a human being, property is part of us; it is our nature, which we turn to valuable use. At times, some people use force or fraud to take form other without voluntary consent. Examples of them are: if someone takes the life of other is murder, about liberty is slavery and property is theft. We have the right to protect our own lives, liberty and property from the forceful aggression of others. A lso, we can ask for help to others to defend us (parents) because they never want bad thing for their children.Nevertheless, we have to be sure that we are not initiating to force against the life, liberty, and property of others. We have the right to seek for a leader for ourselves to drive us, but we do not have rights to impose rulers onto others. Since we our own life, we are responsible for our lives. We do not ret our lives from other humans who demand obedience. We studied in the beginning the God created us and just to Him we should show up obedience and worship to Him; however we do not do it. We are living in the grace time that is why God does not destroy us yet. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ† (John 1: 17). Nor are we slaves form others who demand our sacrifice. In our lives, we choose our own goals based on our own vales, those values can go downs and ups; however we will reach one of the goal. Success and failure bo th are necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Our actions on behalf of others or their actions behalf of us, it is virtuous only when it is derived firm voluntary, mutual and consent. For virtue just can exist only where there is free choice.It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical. The problems in the world that arise from initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of the Earth to stop asking government officials and initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only form evil people, but also from good people who tolerant the initiation of forces as means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil people through the history. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk and to act. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do† (Romans 7: 15). References (1998). King James Bible. (KJ V ed. , Vol. Deuteronomy). Nashville, TN: Cornerstone Bible Publishers. Kay B. Warren (1998). Indigenous movements and their critics. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 41 Street Princeton, New Jersey 08540. 163. Norquist, G. (2005). Ownership Can Be Revolutionary. American Enterprise,  16(2), 50. Stewart, D. , Blocker, G. H. , & Petrik, J. (2012). Fundamentals of philosophy. (8th ed. ed. ). New York: Pearson.

Hobbes Theory of the Nature of Humans - 2245 Words

Socrates and Machiavelli both aspire to the same end of accomplishing certain political goals. Machiavelli, in the Prince, speaks of his desire to end political conflict through the institution of order while Socrates, as described by Plato, seemingly wishes for the government of his time to be replaced with a more just system. Though the two historical figures are both very relevant to the concepts of power and how to attain it, they are polar opposites when it comes to the means by which they hope to accomplish their personal ends. In The Prince, Machiavelli gives an essential guide of how a Prince must appear and how he must interact with his subject in order to make sure that they are complacent and subordinate. On the other hand,†¦show more content†¦On the other hand, the perfect prince is more observant and more aware than the gadfly, which would play to his benefit. That said, a perfect prince ought not avoid a mediocre gadfly (imagine that!) because he (the pri nce) is wiser are more clever. On the other hand, an imperfect prince does not have the tools nor intelligence to evade a gadfly, and will thus necessarily be revealed. On the other a prince may be able to mitigate the impact of a gadfly. To start, people give much more credence to a prince than they give to any old man wandering the street badgering people with questions. Secondly, the prince could mitigate the gadfly problem by denying the gadfly access. If the gadfly does not have access to the prince, there is no way for the revelations to be made and thus the prince will be able to maintain his power unquestioned. The only way that the gadfly in the real world could have an effect is if he can get access to the prince, find the contradictions (defeat the prince’s master ability of deception), publicize them to the people, and in the end have the credibility to be taken seriously. In conclusion, though both the Machiavellian Prince and the Socratic Gadfly have the intention of accomplishing certain political ends, the means by which they seek the accomplish those ends is completely different.Show MoreRelatedComparing Thomas Hobbes and Augustine Essay878 Words   |  4 Pagesstate of nature is a condition of constant war, which rational and self-motivated people want to end. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Augustine argues that peace is more than the absence of hostilities - it is a state of harmony that makes possible the full functioning of human beings. Full functioning comes from the four internal virtues (courage, justice, temperance, and prudence) that we must exercise to achieve good human morality. Human morality, by and of its self, will not allow us humans to travelRead MoreThomas Hobbes State of Nature in Leviathan Essay847 Words   |  4 Pagesdeemed paramount. Within the State of Nature that is, outside of civil society we have a right to all things ‘even to one another’s body’, and there would be no agreed authority to ensure the moral grounds of our decisions. Therefore since there are no restrictions and no shared authority; man is naturally un-guarded and prone to conflict and each individual is deemed a potential threat to our resources. From this concept Hobbes deduces that the state of nature is thus primarily a state of war,Read MoreCompare and Contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s Views of the State of Nature and the Fundamental Purpose of Political Society. Whose View Is the More Plausible? Why?1564 Words   |  7 PagesCompare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why? Introduction Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from thoseRead MoreHobbes And Locke s Political Legitimacy1530 Words   |  7 Pagespolitical legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that politicalRead MoreThomas Hobbes and John Locke on Natural Rights Essay929 Words   |  4 P agesHobbes and Locke on Natural Rights According to the natural right theory, the state of nature is the original condition of human beings in regard to any common authority. In the state of nature, according to Thomas Hobbes, each individual has a right to everything, even the body/life of the other. The state of nature can lead to the state of moral chaos. Moral chaos produces physical chaos or war, thus the state of war, the war of all against all. The reason this is because no one has anyRead MoreThe Social Contract: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau1377 Words   |  6 Pagescontract theory into what it is in this modern day and age. The social contract theory was the creation of Hobbes who created the idea of a social contract theory, which Locke and Rousseau built upon. Their ideas of the social contract were often influenced by the era in which they lived and social issues that were present during their lives. Although all men sit in different positions on the theoretical political spectrum, which is derived from the ir work on the Social Contract Theory, they carryRead MoreThomas Hobbes And John Locke s Political Theories Essay2061 Words   |  9 PagesAnalyzing Thomas Hobbes and John Locke’s Political Theories and Justifying if these Governmental Officials Have Legitimate Reason To Hold Secrets from the Public Systems of government across the globe are utilized to various extents. Similarly to John Locke’s vision of government, the United States stands by a system of representative democracy. This means that our government highly values that the people of a society hold the power of where the direction of their state goes through electing officialsRead MoreNiccolo Machiavellis Change In The Scientific Revolution And Secularism Essay1334 Words   |  6 PagesBentham and Machiavelli had similar ideas on utilitarianism, or doing what is best for the largest group of people. Also occurring throughout the Renaissance and Enlightenment was the Scientific Revolution, which would forever change the way man viewed nature. From 1500 to 1900, the idea of humanism led many to use logic and reason to make new discoveries and inventions. Jacob Bronowski, author of The Western Intellectual Tradition, consistently portrays many of the philosophers he discusses as a scientistsRead MoreRussian Mafia1601 Words   |  7 PagesOne of the most famous types of organized crime in the past and present is the Russian Mafia. This article entails the rational choice theory model with how it justifies being able to join the Russian Mafia and the business that they conduct. A rational theorist would argue that we as people are rational human beings who carefully calculated the consequences of our behaviour. We make choices based on the cost benefit analysis. The concept of the cost benefit analysis is that when we have to makeRead MoreThe Theories Of International Politics Essa y1648 Words   |  7 Pagesnational interest in terms of power. It explains the anarchist nature of the global society without a form of international government possibly existing. If no government is present, then the chaos and disorder is inevitable as every state carries unstoppable search for power at the same time. This explains how states behave and interact with one another. Hobbes defines this incessant search for power as being inherent to our very human nature. The only role of each state is therefore to maximize that