third dimension of power
According to Steven Luke, the third dimension of power refers to the exercise of power through dominating and influencing the needs and wants of other people. The third dimension of power predicts people’s behavior without their recognition, therefore denying them access privileges to the reasons for their actions. It includes power in ideology, decision-making, and the non-decision making process. During world war II, the American government used propaganda to promote to stimulate economic growth through the promotion of war bonds. The American government also encouraged its citizens to reduce waste and grow their vegetables to help in reducing the price of war supplies such as cannons, guns, and steel.
In comparison between majoritarian and pluralistic democracy, the former refers to the conventional political system based on the majority rule of citizens in society. In contrast, the latter refers to a modern political system that has more than one source of power. In majoritarian democracy, the tyranny of the majority in the society might oppress or exclude the minority with the potential for violence and civil war. Pluralistic democracy emphasizes on rule by many people through creating government positions for inclusivity. The majoritarian democracy is common and practiced in many countries though not universally accepted, while the majority of the society minimally supports the pluralistic democracy.
In federalist paper 10, Madison’s main concern is the political instability caused by rival factions.The paper clearly describes the incapability of the state government to curtailing rival factions. As a result of factions, the people blame the government for their problems. According to Madison paper 10, the framers’ concern for the tyranny of the majority is misplaced.The framers advocated for a more representative form of government, which in this case could not control conflicts created by factions. In a direct democracy, the majority elect the few who govern and do not protect the weak factions. Also, direct democracies do not protect the personal and property rights of its citizens, which results in conflicts between supporting and opposing factions.
I agree with the court’s decision to uphold public picketing at funerals since it based its arguments on the protection of public speech under the first amendment. The use of speech in public picketing for this case dealt with issues of public concern, and as such, the principle of open debate matters should be uninhibited. In this court case, interpretation of the harm principle should protect the thoughts and opinions of others , as long as they don’t cross over into action. Therefore special protection of a wide range of speech that goes beyond thought is misplaced.
