Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
Great Presentations!
Mallory, Kelly, Emma, Bianca and Fabiola, you treated us like gods and goddesses today, thank you so much! To Mitch and John, thanks so much for bringing a little of Greece to us today. Haley, thank you for making our day "sweeter". Stephanie and Mark, thank you for using technology to enhance your lesson. To the rest of the class; thank you for your cooperation!
Archivo del blog
-
▼
2008
(15)
- ► septiembre (6)
21 comentarios:
if i were to choose between the two forms of government i would pick timocracy because everyone and everything would be equal there would be no rich no poor just plain no discrimination because if you o say something to disrespect another person you are doing the old sayin "im rubber your glue anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" in other words it is applying to yourself as well which would take a LOT of the problems this world has today or it might add to them. who knows but that is my opinion.
-EMILY BENNETT
I would rather have an aristocracy government. The aristocracy government is run by the best individuals (best qualified for the job).
Timocracy is a government based on wealth, so how does that really prove how well you can contribute to a government.
-Alison Robinson
i think i would have to choose timocracy because the military has some say in the government. but over all i would stay with the democracy.
I think I would like to have an Aristocracy. For one you are free to do what you please with certain rules of course. I also think that there wouldn’t be anything to wish for if we had a Timocracy. Everyone would be equal and don’t get me wrong equality is good but things wouldn’t be as interesting. You couldn’t wish to be rich or dream of a fabulous lavish lifestyle if there wasn’t one that existed. I think that with a Aristocracy we could have freedom under our rule and we could dream and all have our differences.
-Jazzy
Well, I think that democracy trumps all. We should have the freedom to choose what rules, laws, etc that we put in place. Also, I don't believe in 'spreading the wealth around'. If you work hard for all your life, or if you maybe just have a high paying job, you shouldn't have to give your money to those who don't deserve it. Maybe they worked harder than you, but they didn't make as much. If I chose a job that doesn't pay as much, fine, but I can't complain about how all those rich people need to give me thier money becuase I think I need it more. In addition to that, I really don't think that you should give me something that I don't deserve, or visa versa. For instance, lets say you have an A in this class, and I have a C. I need a B for the class. So, do you want to give me some of your points so I can have a B as well as you? No, I don't think that anyone would really and truely want to do that. Even if I said that you are just naturally smart, so its easy and I worked harder becuase I needed to study more, but it didn't work well for me, would you want to help me out by decreasing your grade so I can have a better one? Maybe if I was your friend, you migiht. What about a complete stranger? If some Union kid needed a grade raise, and they didn't think you deserved an A, would you give them part of your hard-earned grade?
So, I really don't believe in a timoracy becuase it is too close to communism. I hate communism. I also don't think that your government should nessecarily be all the rich people, if they are elected its a different thing. But, I think that Asristocracy would be better becuase then it isn't communism and those people are rich for a reason. They have buisness smarts that may be useful for running a country. I don't really like either, becuase a democracy is the best form of government there is.
-Savannah Smith
I would want to stay with a democracy if I had to make the choice, because the people make all of the decisions. I wouldn't like to have the government control everything, because I trust myself to make the right decisions for how I live and not someone I don't know. Plus, if all the rich people ruled...well it probably wouldn't be a TON different, since McCain has, what? 9 cars and 12 houses? (GOBAMA!)
If i would have to choose i would choose Timocracy.The reason i choose Timocracy was it would mean that we would all be equal.Also because the military we need that.But democracy is not that bad though.
Okay. Who cares if someone is rich? They are rich for a reason, and that reason is becuase they suceeded in life. Why is that a bad thing in today's society. Its all "Oh, he or she is rich, and we don't want rich poeple running the country!" Well, what? Do we want a hobo running the country? Or someone who can't manage to make enough money to spend alot? I wonder if all those "poor people in America" would spend as much as McCain or Palin or Obama. They haven't had the chance to mess up yet. So do we say "OH, rich person. You probably have a bunch of stuff. I'm jealous of you, so I am going to pretend you are something you're not." Really, I think that is pretty much what is the problem. We are jealous of those who make more, so we want them to give us thier money becuase we think we deserve it more. This is COMMUNISM!!!! TIMOCRACY!!!!! What people don't realize is how sutpid this sounds. "I think that you shouldn't have what you ahve, even though you have earned it, or have inherited it. So, give me a bunch of it so I can be rich like you!" Wait, if rich people don't deserve as much as we think we do, then do you really think that taking handouts is a good way to get rich. Is it something we actually deserve? So, guess what? If you are a believer in "spreading the wealth around" and you make an allowance, then you should give me some of it, becuase I work harder then you.
omg!s comment was in response to
hannah tripp
i would most likely stick with democracy because obviously we all have our say in what goes on. i would not like anyother because in them we would have as much freedom. timocracy would be my next choice because of the fact no one would be rich or poor but i don't know enough about it yet to pick that over democracy
Mitch Spaulding
skittles.
If i had to choose i would choose to be under Timocracy. There would be no poor or no rich. Everyone would be equal & able to do everything. I think this would stop a lot of problems in the world. Yahh (:
-gabriela guzman
Although neither sound good, I think I would have to choose Timocracy. This is because, with Aristocracy, only the rich would have power. At least with Timocracy, we'd all be the same. Everyone would be equal. But then it wouldn't be fair for the people that would normally earn more money, because they'd be working harder, and gettting less while people working low jobs with low pay in the first place would be earning the same amount as them. And thats not really fair, but its fairer than the rich having all the power.
Zac Abid
It would come down to democracy or timocracy but in the end democracy wins. Because we deserve to have a say in what goes on. Democracy has obviously worked well so far. Leading and living is for the whole. Not just for a couple individuals who think they're better than everyone else. That just leads to dictatorship.
FREEDOM!!!
Sorry I posted late...:(
Thank you to the people who did the homework and put some thought to it.
:)
Ok...Zach is right when he says that it isn't fair when the people who would make more money and work harder than others would get the same amout. gabriela guzman, how would it solve problems in the world if we were communist? Haven't many lives been lost during history trying to stop the spread of communism? I really don't see how some people having more money would cause problems. Please, someone tell me an important historical conflict that has been caused by someone being rich and someone else being poor! I don't agree with just letting the rich rule, but as I said in my last blog, they also have buisness skills and the rich tend to be very saavy (nice word choice, I know). I think if there was a clone of someone. Same views, same personality, same everything. Now, the only difference is one of them has lost thier money and is poor, and the other has found a way to make more money than they lose, and they grow interest on it. Which one would you elect to handle America and its decisions? Someone who has lost thier money, or someone who has gained money?
Mitch Spaulding, its not just you. But, I swear if people read these blog entries back during the cold war, they would think you were communist.
" would pick timocracy because everyone and everything would be equal there would be no rich no poor just plain no discrimination"
"The reason i choose Timocracy was it would mean that we would all be equal."
"timocracy would be my next choice because of the fact no one would be rich or poor but i don't know enough about it yet to pick that over democracy"
"If i had to choose i would choose to be under Timocracy. There would be no poor or no rich. Everyone would be equal & able to do everything. I think this would stop a lot of problems in the world. Yahh (:"
"This is because, with Aristocracy, only the rich would have power. At least with Timocracy, we'd all be the same. Everyone would be equal."
Just a little communist!
continuing omg!s comment about the grades:
So, in addition to that, lets say the school mandates that you give up your grade every time you get more than a B. Now, lets translate it into income. If you every thing you made after a certain amount you had to give it to the government, then would you stop trying to make money after that certain amount??? I know I would. Make what you can keep. Its kind of like you can only get a 100%, so any extra credit work doesn't matter. So, if that is put into income, you work for free after a certain amount. Makes alot of sense why people would want that, don't you think?
For all you people who think that
everyone being the same would be good:
For everyone to be perfomring at the same level is the same as finding the least common denominator. SInce no one can perform at a higher level then the lowest performer, which is essentialy dumbing down society to the least common denominator. This would inhibit progress in things like medicine, technology, and quality of life. So everyone would have to be as miserable as the most miserable person.
Boo!
So, a rising tide raises all boats, which means if one person excels, everyone benifits. BUt if nobody excellens, nobody beniftis. And so no one would work harder to excel, becuase there would be no incentive fo rthem to do that, which will always lead to some people attaining more than others. And they wouldn't just work for the common good, becuase it is against human nature to work harder than everybody else and not be rewarded in some form for that hard work. Thats were it goes back to the example of you not being able to get more than a B in class. Why would you put in a couple hours of work at home if it deosn't help your grade at all.
LOL... you guys have to work... jk... I love you MRS>VELEZ
And whoever OMG! is, you need to kind try and sound a tad nicer bc you are too opinionated and it's pissing me off! You are being a net-jerk!
k, sorry that was kinda harsh. i love you guys, just so u know. but, its the truth and the truth hurts.
but, whoever omg! this! is ...more power to ya!
Publicar un comentario