Discuss the views of Socrates and Plato in regards to what the best Essay

Discuss the views of Socrates and Plato in regards to what the best political system should be - Essay Example Democracy can be defined through its features: privacy, equality, affirming freedom and diversity. According to Socrates democracy is not good enough for an ideal republic. Socrates describes democracy as whimsical and with no stable character. Through this, Socrates paints a democratic state as unstable state that is in the act of doing the good thing and bad things whenever they feel like. According to Socrates, democratic states are so subject to things that are not necessary (Jowett and Plato 68). According to Socrates, democracy is hostile to all forms of authority. This is from the fact that one of the pillars that define democracy is freedom. Therefore an authority of any form will automatically be viewed as an attempt to limit freedom (Mara 43). Socrates says that democrats will prefer to die than to submit to authority. Socrates gives the situation where students start to disobey their teachers since they don’t want any form of authority. Plato views a republic to be determined by â€Å"Good Life.† To Plato, â€Å"Good Life† is a kind of harmony that is reached through the application of pure reasoning and justice with the product being a more perfect good life possible. In explaining this, Plato compares the operation of a society and an individual being (Jowett and Plato 58). Plato supposed that human beings have the same features and performs the same functions as city-states. That is a human being is similar to trees, buildings and other physical materials that make a city. Thus each human being is a complex structure made of different parts that has distinct roles. In addition, Plato believed that the human soul has three parts: reason, desire and emotion. He uses this to elaborate that one can’t do things with a part of his soul or the whole soul. According to Plato, accepting and pursuing one thing is opposite to the rejection and avoidance of the same thing and since they are opposite forces they can’t belong to the same part of the

European Court Of Justice and Free Movement of Persons Essay

European Court Of Justice and Free Movement of Persons - Essay Example The move from the European Community to that of European Union was reflected in a number of specific EC Treaty provisions, including the enlargement of competence in the fields of education and culture, and of course the launch of the sacred status of citizenship of the Union2. The Treaty on European Union (here after referred to as TEU or Treaty of Maastricht) has introduced for the first time a systematic concept of citizenship in the Community ambit through Articles 17 to 22 (renumbered after the Treaty of Amsterdam). Article 17 states that Citizenship of the Union is hereby established and that every citizen holding the nationality of the Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Following the Amsterdam amendment citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship. The rights and obligations emanating from the citizenship of the EU are then specified in the following articles 18-22/ ex-art. 8a-8e. They include the right to free movement and residenc e (art.18), active and passive electoral rights in the municipal elections and elections into the European Parliament (art. 19), right for diplomatic protection (art. 20), petition rights to the European Parliament and right to refer matters to Ombudsman (Art. 21). The actual TEU provisions are contained in a new Part Two of the EC Treaty devoted solely to this topic. However, it is the right of free movement and the right of residence which, as they have been right through the debate on European citizenship, form the foundations of Union citizenship. ... Article 17 states that Citizenship of the Union is hereby established and that every citizen holding the nationality of the Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Following the Amsterdam amendment citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship. The rights and obligations emanating from the citizenship of the EU are then specified in the following articles 18-22/ ex-art. 8a-8e. They include the right to free movement and residence (art.18), active and passive electoral rights in the municipal elections and elections into the European Parliament (art. 19), right for diplomatic protection (art. 20), petition rights to the European Parliament and right to refer matters to Ombudsman (Art. 21). The actual TEU provisions are contained in a new Part Two of the EC Treaty devoted solely to this topic. However, it is the right of free movement and the right of residence which, as they have been right through the debate on European citizenship, form the fou ndations of Union citizenship. 2 Article 18 EC provides for freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the Member States. Ivo Shlosark refers to the Maastricht Treaty introducing the concept of citizenship into community law as something of a new phenomenon3. Despite the introduction of formal provisions on citizenship the concept itself was hardly a policy innovation of the Treaty of Maastricht4. The concept of citizenship itself was considered from a very early stage in the development of the Communities. Indeed, since the Treaties of Rome (1957) the Community has legislated fundamental rights and provisions inherent in freedom of movement. Historical steps on the way to European citizenship include the Tindemans Report (1975)5, the introduction of direct Parliamentary