Sunday, November 17, 2019
Morality and Competitor Essay No doubt, Money is an essential, almost indispensable article in the present day world. It is theÃ¢â¬â¢ moneyÃ¢â¬â¢ through which we can purchase all the necessary comforts and amenities of life. If you have money, you can obtain what seems impossible to others. It is the money which gives man, confidence, creditworthiness, credentials, capacity, capabilities and courage. In present day materialistic world, money has become very powerful. In the present day corruption, cut throat competition, callous degradation of moral and ethical values, are for the sake of grabbing and accumulating more and more money. The prestige, respect, social status, commanded by a person is calculated per his monetary status. Time has gone, when we valued a person in evaluated of his moral and ethical values. People were earlier known for keeping their words, for donating every thing to a donee. Now people are know in terms of their ranking in the list of rich of the world. Money has become the centre of all activities. Money and muscle power have become essential ingredients of a successful political leader. Money is regarded as omnipotent by a few people, particularly by the poor. As whatever one does not possess, one aspires it badly, and it becomes mono aim of achievement. For the rich, that owe lots of money, still craving to earn more and more, by hook or by crook, with fair or foul means, without caring even for their own health, own family. They are the servants of money, earning money not for the sake of themselves but for the sake of money and a time comes they find themselves unable to use the money for their happiness. They are unable to eat, unable to taste the most delicious dish, unable to move, walk or enjoy because they suffer from many diseases which are the result of their undue craving for wealth at the cost of health. Can one purchase anything with the power of money? No, one cannot. You cannot purchase inner satisfaction with money, you cannot purchase the lost youthfulness with money, you cannot purchase time from the death at any cost. Those who earn money simply to a have more money, more balance in their accounts are no better than the proverbial miser king Ã¢â¬ËMidasÃ¢â¬â¢. Excessive love for money, make a man slave of money. Money is important for our life, but it is not the most important thing for a human being. Those who use money for fulfilling their necessities, acquiring reasonable comforts and for the welfare of a common good, are the masters of money. But those who earn money just for the sake of increasing its volume and number are slaves of the money. They are the most unfortunate creatures of God who know well that whatever money they are earning, canÃ¢â¬â¢t be taken an iota of that when they die even they are minting more and more money. What a paradox Money has become their master and they are just slaves, having no peace of mind, no moral and ethical values, no inner satisfaction. So it is rightly said that money is a good servant but a bad master. Let us use the money for our comfort, not for the sake of money, minting more and more money.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Kantian Morality Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is perhaps the most noble of any-- acting morally because doing so is morally right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves, in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same manner. Thus, Kant says that an action is morally permissible in one instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims that can be universalized. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself. Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each ... ...be universally applied, acting on those maxims would not be permissible. An example would be allowing anyone with a star shaped birthmark on their back to steal. Universalizing this seems to be possible, at least at first glance. However, universalization implies that a maxim be applicable throughout time. No matter how unlikely, perhaps the future will contain nothing other than birthmarked clones. In that case, the maxim cannot be universalized. And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the idea of an objective, universal morality. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã The main issue with these objections seems to be that Kant's theory breaks down to some extent in certain situations. However, it becomes possible that by further analyzing the situation at hand, certain allowances can be made. Perhaps then the most convincing argument for the theory is that on a day-to-day basis. Kantian Ethics provides a method for deciding the best and most moral course of action. Perhaps this is the purpose of moral theory in the first place. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Kantian Morality Essay -- essays research papers Kantian Morality Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is perhaps the most noble of any-- acting morally because doing so is morally right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves, in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same manner. Thus, Kant says that an action is morally permissible in one instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims that can be universalized. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself. Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each ... ...be universally applied, acting on those maxims would not be permissible. An example would be allowing anyone with a star shaped birthmark on their back to steal. Universalizing this seems to be possible, at least at first glance. However, universalization implies that a maxim be applicable throughout time. No matter how unlikely, perhaps the future will contain nothing other than birthmarked clones. In that case, the maxim cannot be universalized. And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the idea of an objective, universal morality. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã The main issue with these objections seems to be that Kant's theory breaks down to some extent in certain situations. However, it becomes possible that by further analyzing the situation at hand, certain allowances can be made. Perhaps then the most convincing argument for the theory is that on a day-to-day basis. Kantian Ethics provides a method for deciding the best and most moral course of action. Perhaps this is the purpose of moral theory in the first place. Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
When you start a new school or a new grade you never know what to expect, all different types of emotions are running through your head sometimes that could be stress. When I started high school, I didnÃ¢â¬â¢t know what to do, I was the Ã¢â¬Å"newÃ¢â¬ kid on the block. I had to try and be outgoing and meet new people. My freshman year my priorities were not right, the last thing on my mind were my grades, my first goal was to make friends, and make them quick I couldnÃ¢â¬â¢t stand the feeling of not knowing people, thatÃ¢â¬â¢s when my grades started to drop and it was very difficult to bring them back up. People say that high school is going to be the best four years of your life and being that IÃ¢â¬â¢m a senior, I would have to agree. These last three years has been awesome. My personality hasnÃ¢â¬â¢t changed; IÃ¢â¬â¢m still a carefree girl, just with a little more wisdom and a lot more strength. I started off school with a horrible attitude because my parents sent me to a different school. They sent me to a school where I knew about two people, I was so angry at my parents. Read more: My high school life essay Sometimes I had the thought that maybe if I failed on purpose that would probably move me to the school of my choice, Bryan Adams High School, but that didnÃ¢â¬â¢t work out well, all that did was get me into trouble. High school experiences are helpful for the development from a child to a young adult. Students grow together and experience the good the bad and learn from one another. Some make new friends, some loose friends and thatÃ¢â¬â¢s just life. The last day of my high school years is fast approaching and I can only imagine how IÃ¢â¬â¢ll be feeling when I step out of Skyline High School. Throughout these three years, I have felt a lot of urgency about graduating high school, just wondering how it is in the Ã¢â¬Å"Real WorldÃ¢â¬ ? My parents always told me to be a kid and have fun because my time will be coming, I never really thought that through but now that IÃ¢â¬â¢m getting older I realize itÃ¢â¬â¢s much easier to be a kid you donÃ¢â¬â¢t have to worry about many things. The only thing I can say is that I have learned. The most important thing is that, not just that I had learned through the books, but I have learned about life and the road ahead of me. From being an inexperienced freshman to a somewhat mature junior, and now a excited senior, things have really changed for me. I will leave high school as a knowledgeable senior, knowing that there are many dangers to come upon in the real world. Really, I do not know what the world out there holds for me, all I can do is enter it with a open mind and hope for the best with a positive attitude.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, employers were in virtually complete control of their employees and employees livesÃ¢â¬â¢. Government intervention to make the work place safe would not occur for several decades and factories were little more than slave shops under a different term. Typically, employees would have no rights at all regarding their employment and were forced to work in deplorable conditions: factories with insufficient light and unsafe work conditions. Many had no ventilation and were fire hazards because of the combustible materials that were used. Employees were forced to work long hours based on production needs and no thought was given to employee health or well-being. In many instances, the employer would create company towns in the region near their factories. The company would own all houses, markets and goods in the community. The company would then charge exorbitant rates for rent, food and goods making it virtually impossible for employees to get ahead. In many cases, the employee would work for a year only to owe the company money at the end of the year. This was done as a means to keep people from moving to other factories or other communities.Ã In addition, the law allowed people to be sent to prison for their debts and the debts of the parents to be passed on to the children, so often several generations of a family would be virtually enslaved by their employer. Wages that were paid were insufficient for a family to be fed and often parents and children worked in these sweatshops as a method of maintaining the family life. Children did not attend school or have any hope of a better life as they were sent in to the factories at very young ages. Women were often forced to leave children at home with an older sibling while they worked or were unable to work at all because of an infant or toddler in the home. Very young children placed a severe burden on the family because of the loss of wages and many children were abandoned to state-run orphanages in hopes that they would end up in a better life or to simply prevent a drag on the familyÃ¢â¬â¢s income. This was not a benevolent dictatorship. The employer often ruled with an iron-fist and lived in the lap of luxury while his employees died of disease and malnutrition brought on by his greed. Employers were also allowed without repercussion to discipline employees as they saw fit and often took great liberties with female employees who were afraid of losing their jobs if they did not comply. Employers profited greatly during this time because labor was plentiful and they could make it cheap. Employers did not provide health care or disability for employees hurt or killed on the job.Ã Instead, the financial burden on their families was increased by the lack of income. And, people were hurt or maimed regularly by substandard equipment and poor conditions. Another favorite tactic on employers early in the Industrial Revolution was to pay people according to the number of pieces that they could produce.Ã This was yet another manner of ruling with an iron fist. Employers could assign employees to good machines, which produced fast and accurate pieces, or old and worn out machines at their discretion. Young people had an advantage of being able to work faster and often would have made better wages, except that employers seized on the idea that children had fewer responsibilities and used this as an excuse to pay children less even though they were expected to carry the workload of an adult. Children who failed were often beaten. During the American Civil War, proponents of slavery pointed out the inequities in the system and argued that Southern landowners often treated their slaves better than many employers treated their employees. They argued that a slave owner saw his slave as an investment and valued its contribution to his success and a business owner viewed his employees as an endless, replaceable commodity and took no personal responsibility for their safety, health or well-being. What is and was the right of existence for the unions? The UK was not initially a good place for unions to be. In 1799 and 1800, British Prime Minister William Pitt had a pair of acts passed called the combination acts which made it illegal for people to band together to try to get shorter working hours or more pay. Then, in 1817 Parliament against acted, this time making it illegal for a group of more than 50 people to meet together and order the arrest of anyone accused of spreading seditious libel, any untoward remarks regarding the Parliament or the Crown.Ã This severely hampered efforts for parliamentary reform as people were afraid to speak out. Two years later, nearly 50,000 people gathered at St. PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s Field to hear subversive, pro-union newspaper editors and other union leaders talk about the need for reform and the local magistrate, backed by the British Army, attacked, purportedly in an effort to arrest one of the speaks. Several accounts say many of the soldiers were drunk when they attacked the crowd with their sabres. As a result, Parliament instituted the Six Acts, which expanded the definitions of seditious libel and allowed permanent ceasing of a publication as means of punishment. It also changed the newspaper and stamp act so that even publications of purely opinion were subjected to the tax and provided local authorities with the right to seize people and arms accused of participating in a union gathering. In 1824, the combination acts were repealed and met with a national outbreak of strikes, resulting in Parliment's decision to pass a new combination act in 1835. This was the first significant legislation o legalize trade unions, though it made their scope very narrow. Trade unions could meet and discuss working conditions and pay only. Any other activities were considered a criminal conspiracy to restrict trade. The law also forbade unions from doing anything to obstruct or intimidate others. This was viewed as problematic as it gave the judiciary an unprecedented leeway in determining what activities violated the law. The act remained the law of the land until 1867 when Benjamin Disraeli and others banded together to have the law changed so that a striking union could be charged only with breach of contract and the government in power created the Trade Union Congress. Though calls to allow a union member into the Congress were rejected, the move proved to be an advancement in the cause of unionism. Four years later, the government finally made trade unions legal. In 1875 when Disraeli was named Prime Minister, as promised, he passed legislation making it legal for a union to do anything that an individual could do. This began the age of unionism and in 1880, Parliament passed legislation making management and employers responsible for the safety and well-being of the employees as long as their injury was not the result of actions by fellow workers. In 1906, legislation as passed to prevent employers from suing unions when they had a loss of income as a result of a strike and in 1913 legislation made it clearly legal for the labor unions to contribute to the political party of their choice as determined by union leadership. In 1927, legislation was passed to prevent civil servants from joining unions affiliated with the Trade Union Congress and outlawed the use of sympathetic strikes and general strikes. That is, with minor revision, the state of the trade labor union today. On which roles does the Globalization of the economy depend? Globalization of the economy is a tricky business and highly dependent on the ability of workers and employers to adapt to the changing international labor market and the changing role of the industrialized world in the age of technology. There has been some effort made within the last two years to update the trade union system and encourage union modernization so that the workers can quickly be retrained with skills more appropriate to the emerging labor market. As with other parts of the world, the concern among trade unions is that jobs traditionally left to them are now being outsourced to cheaper labor environments worldwide. If we are to adjust to this availability of cheap labor elsewhere, we must do so by changing the way we look at labor unions and evaluating the new markets that could be the modern labor frontiers. One example of this might be to examine computer workers and administrative positions traditionally viewed as white collar work. These areas are the new growth industries and in recent years, the site of the most abuse of employees. In addition, these more advanced positions have traditionally had to negotiate salaries for themselves resulting in huge disparities person to person and based on gender, age, and other discriminatory factors. For globalization to work the economy must be revitalizes and the United Kingdom must adjust its perceptions at home and abroad about the things that it will produce. No longer will mining and textiles be a major portion of the economy. Instead, if we are to accept our part in a global economy, we must identify new areas in which we can develop an unrivaled expertise and global reliance. In a 2005 report, HM Treasury argued that the UK is in an unrivaled position worldwide to make the most of globalization in that we have the economic and trading ties to the entire world. In addition, we have a strong business, technology and macroeconomic base from which to begin our quest. Not only must we train employees in the fast-growing areas of technology which will present the best opportunity for our people, but we must also reward innovation and creativity. The report calls for the support of workers who need to be retrained to join the global economy and the wise and efficient use of energy and resources as a means to prevent reliance on other countries for our energy needs. Most importantly, we must rely on the well-established international trade that helped build and strengthen the economy in the first place. It is vitally important that the country not turn to isolationism as a manner of dealing with the threat of international competition. The problem is that many people promote the idea of protectionism as a way to avoid the international competition, but we know that this approach will only lead to a need to rejoin the world economy at a later date when we are less strong and able to do so. We must move forward now and implement change instead of hiding from it. What is mundialism or anti globalization? Mundialism is the process of building interconnected word governing bodies rather than integrating the existing nation-states into an interdependent global world. Proponents of mundialism argue that entities such as the International Court and a one-world government should be created rather than relying on the concept of nation-states. Mundalism promoted the concept that what is right for the world as a whole is right for the individual citizens and the individual nations of the world. It argues that by working together for the common good, we can overcome economic, social and ideological differences for the betterment of all humankinds. Anti-globalization can encompass a number of different policies, but largely it is the idea that the governments, economies and societies of the world should not be interdependent and that they should remain separate by distinct barriers including borders and cultural boundaries. Anti-globalization proponents are perhaps the most extreme opponents of mundialism. They believe that the world is already too interconnected and that it would be better if we could simply draw the curtains up around our countries and keep the rest of the world argue. Many argue that the world can never be as interdependent as promoted by mundialism and that it will always be divided by was and ideology. The idea, they say, is that human nature is competitive and that we cannot make all faiths and all political viewpoints get along. Some would even argue that the only way that mundialism could work would be with a strong world ruler, that someone would have to get the final deciding vote on right and wrong. Mundialism supporters argue that if the nationÃ¢â¬â¢s of the world all expressed a true desire to work together in harmony the major strife points of the world could be eliminated and wars and border disputes could end. Anti-globalization proponents call that pie in the sky nonsense. There will always be a competition for resources and for power. Those without it will strive for it via any means necessary and those who have it will seek to retain it. Somewhere in there middle is where we actually are. There are some world organizations, like the International Criminal Court and there are some opponents to those organizations, like the United States. There are growing disputes worldwide over everything from economic gain to religion to claiming the land that sits beneath the polar icecaps. And, neither theory adequately addresses what should be done about global problem areas like Rwanda and Darfur, places where the massacres keep happening, the land is destroyed and the people are unable to subsist, much less contribute to a world economy. Describe the Trade union s structure and state why the unions are losing members. Trade unions are designed to be very specific in their membership and then are loosely affiliated with the Trade union Congress. However, this specialization is contributing to the decline of the unions and the loss of members nationally. Unions are supposed to be local, with members choosing a regional representative to speak to the specific concerns of their company or community. Then, the locals are affiliated with a national organization which is in turn affiliated with the national congress. But in recent years, with declining employment in regions once covered by the trade unions, even the largest of the unions are beginning to shrink or disappear entirely.Ã This is a factor of the changing work environment within the UK, as more and more people are working in quasi-professional positions not covered by the trade unions. Furthermore, even locally, unions do not represent the universal political opinions that they once did. Neighbors now may agree on matters of union employment, but have vastly different opinions with regards to national politics and how the union should be influencing them. This diversity in the union has caused a loss of political power and a loss of interest within the membership. In addition, the major concern facing trades people in 2007 is not something the union can do much to change.Ã Unions have had little impact in corporate decisions to close factories or move operations to other nations where the labor costs are more favorable. The days of the union being able to protect its workers and provide for a safer work environment, better benefits and a happier way of life are gone, Instead, the unions continue to take dues from members, reducing their overall take home pay, but add no benefits. The days of the sweatshop are long gone and virtually every worked is provided the same protections under the law that a union worker can get in a union shop.Ã That is not to say that the union has outlived its usefulness, but rather that unions have accomplished their original goals of workplace safety and equal treatment for workers. If unions seriously want to reverse the trend of losing membership, they must realize that they play an important role in the globalization process and update themselves to meet that need. Unions must be actively involved in retraining workers and helping them to find new means of gainful employment.Ã Unions must work in conjunction with business to find better ways to improve global competitiveness and to make employers understand the value of well-educated, highly-trained workers over cheap labor in an unregulated state.
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Jean Baptiste Moliere essays JEAN-BAPTISTE POQUELIN MOLIÃËRE16221673From The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces Vol. 2, 7th edition, ed. Maynard Mack, et. al. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999) Son of a prosperous Paris merchant, Jean-Baptiste Molire (originally named Poquelin) devoted his entire adult life to the creation of stage illusion, as playwright and as actor. At about the age of twenty-five, he joined a company of traveling players established by the Bjart family; with them he toured the provinces for about twelve years. In 1658 the company was ordered to perform for Louis XIV in Paris; a year later, Molires first great success, The High-Brow Ladies (Les Prcieuses ridicules), was produced. The theatrical company to which he belonged, patronized by the king, became increasingly successful, developing finally (1680) into the Comdie FranÃ §aise. In 1662, Molire married Armande Bjart. He died a few hours after performing in the lead role of his own play The Imaginary Invalid. Molire wrote both broad far ce and comedies of character, in which he caricatured some form of vice or folly by embodying it in a single figure. His targets included the miser, the aspiring but vulgar middle class, female would-be intellectuals, the hypochondriac, and in Tartuffe, the religious hypocrite. In Tartuffe (1664), as in his other plays, Molire employs classic comic devices of plot and characterhere, a foolish, stubborn father blocking the course of young love; an impudent servant commenting on her superiors actions; a happy ending involving a marriage facilitated by implausible means. He often uses such devices, however, to comment on his own immediate social scene, imagining how universal patterns play themselves out in a specific historical context. Tartuffe had contemporary relevance so transparent that the Catholic Church forced the king to ban it, although Molire managed to have it publishe...
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
'The Lightning Thief' and References to Greek Mythology Rick Riordans The Lightning Thief (the first volume of Riordans Percy Jackson and the Olympians series) mentions many names familiar from Greek mythology. Here youll find further information on the explicit mythological references and some more subtle mythological allusions. The order of the list below attempts to follow the sequence of mentions in the book as well as Riordans other references to Greek mythology. The Book Series The Percy Jackson and the Olympians Series consist of five books by author Rick Riordan. The first book, The Lightning Thief, focuses on Percy Jackson, who is about to get kicked out of boarding school for the second time. Mythological monsters and gods are after him and he only has ten days to rectify what they want from him.Ã In the second book, The Sea of Monsters, Percy finds trouble at Camp Half-Blood where mythological monsters are back. In order to save the camp and keep it from being destroyed, Percy needs to gather his friends.Ã The third book,Ã The Titans Curse, has Percy and his friends looking to see what happened to the goddess Artemis, who went missing and is believed to have been kidnapped.Ã They need to solve the mystery and save Artemis before the winter solstice. In the fourth book, The Battle of the Labyrinth, the war between the Olympians and Titan lord Kronos grows stronger as Camp Half-Blood becomes more vulnerable. Percy and his friends have to go on a quest in this adventure. In the fifth and final installment of the series, The Last OlympianÃ focuses on the half-bloods preparing for the war against the Titans. Knowing it is an uphill battle, the thrill is strong to see who will reign more powerful. About the Author Rick Riordan is most known for the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series but has also written the Kane Chronicles and the Heroes of Olympus. He is a #1 New York Times bestselling author and has won multiple awards for the mystery series for adults known as Tres Navarre. Mythological References KronosTitansZeus/JupiterTitanomachyFatesHadesMinotaurHerculesChironPegasusHeraApolloNymphsDionysusAphrodite/VenusPrometheusCentaurUnderworldHermesAresOracleNaiadsAthenaDemeterPoseidonLaurelHephaestusArtemisCerberusNemesisCyclopsTrojan WarCirceHydraPythonMaiaJasonMt. EtnaIliadGolden AgeGorgonsPanShower of GoldNemean LionZephyrChimeraIrisCupidArachneArachneAresArtemisAphrodite/VenusApolloAsphodel FieldsAthenaCentaurCerberusCharonChimeraChironCirceCupidCyclopsDemeterDionysusElysian FieldsEtnaFatesGolden AgeGorgonsHeraHadesHarpiesHeraHephaestusHerculesHermesHydraIliadIrisJasonJupiter/ZeusKronosLaurelLotusOracleMaiaMinotaur9 MusesMt. EtnaNaiadsNemean LionNemesisNereidNymphsPanPegasusPersephonePoseidonPrometheusPythonShower of GoldSisyphusTitanomachyTitansTrojan WarUnderworldUnderworld Judges - MinosVenus/AphroditeZephyrZeus/JupiterLotusNereidCharonAsphodel FieldsElysian FieldsDemeter9 MusesHarpiesAndromedaAntaeusBulls of ColchisCadmusCalypsoDryadsEurytionGanymedeGeryonGraeaeJanusLaistrygo nians Mt. OthrysPeleusPolyphemus
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Free movement of person in EU law - Essay Example The European Union headquarters is in Brussels, Belgium. European Union law is the unique legal system which operates alongside the laws of Member States and overrides national law in many areas especially in terms of economic and social policy . EU is not a federal government, nor it is intergovernmental organization. The European Union (EU) was established in 1993 by the 12 nations of the European Community. The EU works toward better political and economic integration and cooperation between member nations. Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU in 1994 (Encarta,2003). The European Union was formally established on November 1, 1993. It is the most recent in a series of European cooperative organizations that originated with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 1951, which became the European Community (EC) in 1967. The members of the EC were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and Spain. In 1991 the governments of the 12 member states signed the Treaty on European Union (commonly called the Maastricht Treaty), which was then ratified by the national legislatures of all the member countries. The Maastricht Treaty transformed the EC into the EU. In 1994 Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU, bringing the total membership to 15 nations, (Encarta,2003). The EU has a number ... With the exception of EMU, which went into effect in 1999, progress toward these goals has been erratic. The EU's ability to achieve its goals has been limited by disagreements among member states, external political and economic problems, and pressure for membership from the new democracies of Eastern Europe,(Encarta,2003).. EU Law is composed of three pillar structure based on different treaty namely: 1. Treaty of the European Communities signed in Rome 1957 deals with the law concerning social rights and economic foundations of the single market. It is considered as the oldest and the most important pillars where European Community (EC) law originated. 2. Treaty of European Union (The Maastricht Treaty,1992) which involve Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and; 3. Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (formerly 'Justice and Home Affairs') That European Community (EC) Law represents the firts pillar of EU Law. Community Law is the law of the member states of the European Union (EU), as adopted by the Union's Council of Ministers. The European Court of Justice interprets and applies EU law. Community law forms part of the law of states and prevails over national law (Encarta, 2003). In July 1967 the three organizations (the EEC, the ECSC, and Euratom) fully merged as the European Community (EC). The basic economic features of the EEC treaty were gradually implemented, and in 1968 all tariffs between member states were eliminated. No progress was made on enlargement of the EC or on any other new proposals, however, until after De Gaulle resigned as president of France in May 1969. The next French president, Georges Pompidou, was more open to new