Q&A. What makes a good citizen?
To be a good citizen you need to follow all the laws that their are in the area that you live in, fulfill the responsibilities that you have and respect people's rights. Some laws that their are that you need to follow are pay taxes don’t kill people ext… If you follow theys laws the government will recognize you as a good citizen. Some of the rights that you should respect are the right to vote, the right of free speech, the right to petition, ext… If you do this then then the public will view you as a nice respectful citizen. Some of the responsibilities that you have are to protect the public, express your opinion (speech your mind), ext… If you fulfill your responsibilities you will be viewed as a responsible citizen. And theys are the thing that you should do to be a good citizen.
I believe that the most effective style of government is autocracy.
I think that autocracy is the most effective form of government. Since there is no separation of power one person is in charge or one leader which allows laws and decisions to be made quickly which is extremely effective form of governing the citizens of that country. For example autocracy worked well in Portugal in the 1900’s . Portugal's elected dictator Salazar was able to effectively rule the country through his life. Salazar did multiple good things for the Portuguese government here are some; avoided entering into WW2, the country accumulated gold in comparable scale to Switzerland and he co-founded NATO to stop communist advance in Europe. Autocracy is also an effective form of government because in a dictatorship the country usually becomes more stable. It becomes more stable because dictators stay in power for years and implement rules along the same belief creating a platform of stability because the country will most likely be run in the same way and certain things will be most likely be encouraged . For example Napoleon Boulevard was the dictator of France he influenced tons of countries around Europe as he concurred land and created economic stability. In conclusion autocracy is an extremely effective style of government. It is because decisions can be made quick and easily and the government becomes more stable.
While supranational corporations have many rewards there are also many forces that work against supranational corporations. One of the forces that works against the EU (a supranational corporation) is people don’t always agree on where EU money should be spent. In general Western Europe members of the EU make more money and are more wealthy than those living in Eastern Europe since the EU tries to have all of its members be on the same economic level they spend more of there money on countries in Eastern Europe. The Western EU members don’t like money being spent outside of their own area causing tension. Another force against the EU is countries are expected to give up some power when joining the EU. Since they give up some power the countries may have to carry out decisions that it doesn't agree with. Another force against the EU is cultural identity or National pride even rivalry between countries. In Spain thousand of bulls die ever yet year in bullfights and lots of Europeans think that bullfighting should be banned but lots of Spanish people don’t think that's should be banned. Also people don’t like their countries being thought of as just the EU but as separate countries. And rivalries between countries is another force like for a long time France and England have had a extremely big rivalry there was a war between then that lasted 116 years! And they were always fighting over land and other things. In conclusion there are multiple forces against Supranational corporations. And multiple benefits of being part of a Supranational corporation; and as of now those benefited seem to outweigh the forces against Supranational corporations.
By Luke Leonardo.
I think it is easier to live in the Sahara. Since people who live in the Sahara live at oasis and have enough water to live and grow crops. The people living at oasis are sustained lots of times by date palms providing food to eat and they can drink the water of the oasis they can also build there houses out of date palms and make clothes out of the date palms. The people in the Sahel have to face multiple hardships that people living in the Sahara don’t have to face. In the Sahel there are long droughts, water is scarce, the soil is infertility and it is very hard to farm from old to eat. All of theys hardships are not faced by the people living in the oasis of the Sahara. In conclusion It is much easier to live in the Sahara than the Sahel. There are many more hardships faced by the people living in the Sahel than in the Sahara and theys hardships can mean life and death.