:: wikimiki.org ::

Civil Rights

Civil rights

.]] Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"; civil rights are rights that persons do have, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars think that people should have. For example, the philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the natural rights of life, liberty, and property should be converted into civil rights and protected by the state as an aspect of the social contract. Others have argued that people acquire rights as an inalienable gift from God or at a time of nature before governments were formed. Laws guaranteeing civil rights may be written, derived from custom, or implied. In the United States and most continental European counties, civil rights laws are most often written. In the United States, for example, laws protecting civil rights appear in the Constitution, in the amendments to the Constitution (particularly the 13th and 14th Amendments), in federal statutes, in state constitutions and statutes, and even in the ordinances of counties and cities. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, such rights are frequently granted by custom and are not memorialized in a written law. "Implied" rights are rights that a court may find to exist even though not expressly guaranteed by written law or custom, on the theory that a written or customary right must necessarily include the implied right. One famous (and controversial) example of a right implied from the U.S. Constitution is the "right to privacy", which the U.S. Supreme Court found to exist in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade the Court found that state legislation prohibiting or limiting abortion violated this right to privacy. States and local governments can expand civil rights beyond the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot diminish Constitutional rights. For example, some American cities make it illegal to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation, thus expanding the civil rights of homosexuals; however, cities which create school districts in such a way that the districts discriminate against students on the basis of their race will have injunctions entered against them by the federal courts. States frequently grant civil rights in excess of federal law, such as Article 21 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires that a jury be unanimous in order to convict a person of a crime. Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to life, the right to freedom of movement and anti-discrimination laws. As civilisations emerged and formalised through written constitutions, some of the more important civil rights were granted to citizens. When those grants were later found inadequate, civil rights movements emerged as the vehicle for claiming more equal protection for all citizens and advocating new laws to limit the effect of current discriminations. Civil rights can in one sense refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class, or it can refer to laws which invoke claims of positive liberty. An example of the former would be the decision in Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) which was concerned with the constitutionality of laws which imposed segregation in the education systems of some U.S states. The theories set out below explain why such laws should not be considered legitimate, but do not explain why the case failed to declare the general principle that all manifestations of segregation were a breach of civil rights (that would be more properly a question of politics). The U.S. legislature subsequently addressed the issue through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sec. 201. which states: (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Some other countries have enacted similar legislation, or have given direct effect to supranational treaties and agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights (with forty-five countries as signatories), which encompass both human rights and civil liberties.

Related terminology

The term 'civil rights' is often used synonymously with civil liberties, even though theoretical jurisprudence distinguishes between right and liberty (see below: Hohfeld). The root of the word 'civil' reflects the association between a bundle of rights and 'citizenship'. The term Human rights refers to a broader concept.
In the early legal systems of Ancient Rome, plebeians and women had no right to vote whether as a juror or for political purposes, and ownership of property was an aspect of patria potestas, i.e. only the father of the family could own property, his wife, relatives and children having no right of ownership. Similarly, the mediaeval European city-states limited access to the status of citizenship and the civil rights associated with it. This practice of dividing societies by reference to class or caste associates privilege with the upper layers of society and means that civil rights attach to people by virute of their citizenship of a state.
Today, in most western societies, it is taken for granted that every person has a number of rights and freedoms, which are valued deeply, closely associated to the modern concept of democracy and supported by public policy. Civil rights are claimed to be the pillars of modern societies. Nevertheless, it is domicile that attaches to an individual at birth, regardless of such factors as race, gender or class, and determines status and capacity. As each individual moves from state to state, the extent of the civil rights to be enjoyed will be determined by the interaction between the domicile of origin, and the cultures and laws of those states in which that person resides as a citizen.
The term human rights is not limited to citizenship of one state and reflects the concept of fundamental rights that all human beings can claim. Whereas 'civil rights', 'civil liberties' and 'constitutional rights' are used to denote expectations as to behaviour and treatment by fellow citizens in any one sovereign state, 'human rights' is more often used in the context of international law, the supranational systems of law that may or may not have direct effect in sovereign states depending on the treaties signed by each state and the nature of their legal systems. Human rights include civil rights. The term may also refer to the rights of refugees and the problems of statelessness; however, the debate on the extent of fundamental human rights is much broader. Jurist Karel Vasak, for example, discusses a right to peace and the right to a clean environment as fundamental human rights.

Theoretical background: The concept of right

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld (1879-1918) maintained that analysis of legal issues is frequently muddled and inconsistent because the legal concepts are improperly understood. The first question, therefore, is to understand what the rights are in "civil rights". There are two major schools of thought:
- Hohfeld proposed a structured system of interrelated concepts
- Nozick and Rawls approached the concept of rights from the perspectives of libertarian and political theory.

Hohfeld's concept of right

Hohfeld distinguished right from liberty, and power from immunity — concepts that are often used interchangeably in non-technical discourse, but are philosophically different. By examining the relationships between these concepts, he hoped to explain the legal interests that have evolved in the real world of civil society and to answer the question whether citizens of a state have any right to access any of the possible forms of social security.
- Right and duty are corelative concepts, i.e. one must always be matched by the other. If A claims a right against B, this is meaningless unless B has a duty to honour A's right. If B has no duty, that means that B has liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases because B has no duty to refrain from doing it, and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so. An individual would be considered to have perfect liberty if no one has a right to prevent the given act.
- Power means the capacity to create legal relationships and to create rights and liabilities. The corelative of power is liability. If A has power over B, B must have liability towards A. For example, properly constituted courts have the power to pass judgements that impose liabilities but, if the defendants are outside the courts' jurisdiction, the judgements are unenforceable. Similarly, a legislature has power to make laws, but those laws that attempt to restrict a fundamental right may be unconstitutional. If the laws are valid, they create a disability; the legal opposite of disability is power. So, children or people suffering from a mental disability should be protected from liability and their power to make a binding contract is removed. A person loses the right to sue another to recover a debt if the period of limitation has expired.
- The legal opposite of liability is immunity. In some countries, government departments exercising sovereign powers cannot be sued in tort and the President or the Prime Minister cannot be personally liable in respect of any contract made or assurance given for the purposes of the state. These are examples of immunities. Although the word right is often used to describe liberty, power, or immunity, Hohfeld clearly distinguished them. Indeed, Hohfeld described liberty as an a priori condition of the rule of law, coming into existence long before any Bill of Rights and offering an individual power to the extent that it is not restricted by any law. Essentially, Hohfeld believed that anyone who tries to encroach on the liberty of a citizen must be required to demonstrate their clear right to do so. After more than eighty years of consideration, some doubt whether this set of conceptual relationships is philosophically sustainable. But, the core juxtaposition of right, duty and liberty remains a seductive argument.

Libertarian and political theory: Nozick and Rawls

Minimal state

Robert Nozick (1938-2003) offered a model of a "minimal state", described as libertarianism. Nozick argued that no state is ever justified in offering anything more than the most minimal of state functions, and further, that whatever might exist by way of rights exists only in the negative sense of those actions not yet prohibited. He denied the possibility that any citizen can have rights that require others to offer him or her services at the state's expense, and tested whether exchanges between individuals were legitimate by an entitlement theory:
- The "transfer principle" holds that goods or services "freely acquired from others who acquired them in a just way are justly acquired"
- The "acquisition principle" states that people are entitled to retain all holdings acquired in a just way
- The "rectification principle" requires that any violation of the first two principles be repaired by returning holdings to their rightful owners as a "one time" redistribution (a reference to the Rawlsian Difference Principle). Nozick, therefore, believed that there are no positive civil rights, only rights to property and the right of autonomy. For him, a just society does as much as possible to protect everyone's independence and freedom to take any action for the benefit of one's self. This is an important teleological protection: the Jeffersonian right to the pursuit of happiness is the freedom to engage in any actions so long as they do not infringe upon that same right exercised by others. Critics of the minimal state-model argue that a state which provides no services to citizens is inadequate.

Just society

John Rawls (1921-2002) developed a model of a different form of just society which relied on:
- The "liberty principle" which holds that citizens require minimal civil and legal rights to protect themselves
- The "difference principle" which states that every citizen would want to live in a society where improving the condition of the poorest becomes the first priority. For Rawls, a right is an "entitlement or justified claim on others" which comprises both negative and positive obligations, i.e. both that others must not harm anyone (negative obligation), and surrender a proportion of their earnings through taxation for the benefit of low-income earners (positive). This blurs the relationship between rights and duties as proposed by Hohfeld. For example if a citizen had the right to free medical care, then others (through the agency of the government) would be obligated to provide that service. Critics of Rawl's approach doubt whether the difference principle is congruous with a state consistently applying the capitalist model. Rawl's ideas however have influenced the implementation of social market economies within a capitalist system in European countries like Germany. The difference between Rawls and Nozick is that Rawls thought that a state should always provide the basic fundamentals of physical existence, whereas Nozick gave no guarantee save that an individual always had the freedom to pursue his or her own ends.

Concepts applied: an example

The rights that evolve through history will be the product of the culture in the given state and they will exist independently of the legal system. The extent to which the state decides to give any of these rights some legal enforcement will be determined by the balance struck between the competing interests within the society. As an example, let us take a proposal to make it illegal to treat people differently on the basis of race. This fits into the context of a general freedom of association and has relevance to freedom of thought. So, one view would be that employment is a personal contract and, because employer and employee must work together well if the business is to prosper, the employer should be free to employ whoever he or she wishes. Similarly, so long as a person keeps his thoughts to him or herself, no change should be necessary. What philosophical justifications would there be for imposing duties and liabilities to modify behaviour and correct thought?
- In Nozick's model, there would be no justification. Every citizen is free to offer employment and/or to offer their labour, and any interference with these freedoms would diminish autonomy. In capitalist countries, this philosophy resonates powerfully with citizens who oppose any restriction on their right to use their justly acquired wealth for their own benefit.
- For Rawls, the Liberty Principle means that no one person should be any less "equal" than any other. Therefore, it would be appropriate to restrict liberty and impose duties to promote social justice. This model works best in countries where the principle of wealth distribution is accepted by the majority. Hence, particular notions of what may constitute fairness or justice will always drive public calls for coercive anti-discrimination laws to fill in the gap where the naming and shaming of "offenders" is not an effective deterrent.
- Hohfeld's analysis would be apolitical. Unlike Nozick and Rawls, the method does not depend on particular political assumptions, but applies rigor to identify the issues of principle. Hence, Hohfeld would begin with an unregulated society in which the employer has a power but no duty to offer employment to all citizens. This is enshrined in the fundamental principle, freedom of contract, which requires that every contract be a consensual bargain. If the codified practice of employers is not to offer employment to a class of citizens, this denial of opportunity is the equivalent of a disability and, as such, a state could act to remove the de facto immunity protecting the employers from appropriate legal redress. What form would this redress take? It cannot be the grant of an absolute right to employment in every citizen of the affected class. There may be many employers in the society but not every one of them may require additional employees. So the earliest time that a corelative duty to offer employment could attach to an employer is when a vacancy arises. But this is only one vacancy and there may be many seeking it. Which among those offering their labour has the best right to the one job? In the reality of this theoretical society, this has to be a decision made by the employer since only the employer has the power to create the contract (i.e. to define the terms and conditions of the work to be done and the wage or salary to be paid). So the only right that the state can give members of the affected class is the right to be judged fairly as against other job applicants and, if successful, to be offered the same terms and conditions applied to those already employed. Anything more than that would be to give job seekers rights and powers that no other part of the law of contract allows — a clearly unjustified outcome since this would be encroaching on the standard package of rights and liberties enjoyed by all citizens in all the other areas of commercial activity within the state. So, a balance is struck. The need for general certainty in the operation of the law outweighs the benefit from introducing a limited exception for the benefit of one group. Yet, a way is found within the law as it stands, for some relief to be given to a disadvantaged class. It is a compromise struck in expediency, but which achieves the desired outcome.

Civil rights movement

Historically, the process of moving toward equality under the law was long and tenuous. But after a status had been reached where every citizen has the same rights by law, practical issues of discrimination remain. Even if every person is treated equally by the state, there may not be equality because of discrimination within society, such as in the workplace, which may hinder civil liberties in everyday life. During the second half of the 20th century Western societies have therefore introduced legislation that tries to remove discrimination on the basis of race, gender or disability.

Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland saw the formation of the Campaign for Social Justice in Belfast in 1964, followed by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) in 1967. It consciously modelled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. The largely Catholic membership demanded the repeal of the Special Powers Acts of 1922, 1933, and 1943, and an end to the discrimination by Ulster Unionist Party government, especially the gerrymandering of local electoral districts to ensure the victory of unionist candidates in areas with nationalist majorities (most blatantly in the city of Derry), in the awarding of local authority housing and in employment. Tentative steps to address these issues by Prime Minister Terence O'Neill was met with vehement opposition from hardline Protestant politicans, most notably Ian Paisley. Frustration at the resistance to reform and the heavy-handed tactics of the RUC and the British army, first caught on film on Duke Street in Derry on 5th October 1968, pushed many Catholics towards supporting the IRA. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected republicans which provoked a civil disobedience campaign. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment. In an attempt to break the escalating cycle of violence including Bloody Sunday in Derry, the British Government introduced direct rule from London in 1972, proroguing the Northern Ireland Parliament. But, following the ending of an IRA ceasefire in 1976, there was a resumption of the political violence that has long been a feature of life in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement introduced power-sharing but the devolved assembly at Stormont has been suspended since October 2002 and the British Parliamentary Election in 2005 produced a polarised result, diminishing the power of the more moderate parties. One of the leaders of NICRA was future Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume, another, Austin Currie, a candidate for President of Ireland in 1990. Hume's co-Nobel Laureate, David Trimble, was leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in the 1990s and 2000s, and had campaigned against sharing power with Catholics in the 1970s. Although some progress has been made, there is a political vacuum in Northern Ireland, caused by the breakdown of the peace process, and many of the issues in policing, housing, and employment first raised by the Campaign for Social Justice in 1964 have yet to be resolved. Joan Harbison, head of Northern Ireland's Equality Commission, noted in her Annual Report in 2000 that, "while this Report reveals that the overall composition of Catholics in the civil service, at 38%, continues to move closer to the figure for labour availability, major under-representation continues to exist within the most senior grades." At present, senior civil servants in Northern Ireland are required to hold a British passport, ruling out those who hold Irish citizenship. In the more recent Monitoring Report No. 14 A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce published by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland in November, 2004, Roman Catholics comprise 42.7% of those of working age available for work. "Comparing only those sections of the fulltime workforce which were monitored in 1990, the overall Roman Catholic share has increased by 5.9 percentage points, from 34.9% in 1990 to 40.8% in 2003." (2004, at p9) But, despite the improvement in the overall pattern of employment, there are causes for concern. For example, in the Security Related Occupations, which include the Police Service, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Prison Service, etc. "The composition was 85.6% Protestant. 9.9% Roman Catholic, and 4.5% undetermined." (2004 at p27).
- See the debate of the Northern Ireland Assembly at http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports/000628.htm
- and the pdf of the Fair Employment Monitoring Report No 14 - A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce at http://www.equalityni.org/publications/recentpubdetails.cfm?id=2
- [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm John Whyte: How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921–68?]

Liberal feminism

Main article: Liberal feminism Whereas radical feminists believe that an improvement of the situation for women can only be achieved through a revolutionary social change, liberal feminism suggests a more conservative approach. Liberal feminists try to achieve equality for women through social reforms by changing institutions and law so as to accommodate gender equality. This approach proved successful. It was liberal feminism that initiated changes in European institutions and that brought about legislature against the discrimination of women. In some European countries (f. i. Austria) job adverts may not be worded in such a way so as to exclude female applicants. Public institutions often try to increase the number of females and encourage women to apply. Feminist writers associated with this tradition are amongst others Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill and second wave feminist Betty Friedan. One major step in the civil rights of women was the movement for the right to vote for women in the early 20th century.

References

- Hohfeld, W. N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, ed. by W.W. Cook (1919); reprint, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964.
- Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books. 1974.
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1999), ISBN 0-674-00077-3.

External links

- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-rights/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
- [http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/index.htm Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project]
- [http://www.floridamemory.com/OnlineClassroom/PhotoAlbum/civil_rights.cfm Images of the Civil Rights Movement in Florida]
- [http://www.crmvet.org/ Civil Rights Movement Veterans]
- [http://themiddleoftheinternet.com/ Susan Klopfer's Mississippi Civil Rights Bookstore]
- [http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/VideoFilm2/video.cfm?VID=42 St. Augustine Race Riots] Brief video clip of demonstrations by blacks on Butler Beach in St. Augustine.
- [http://http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2716/ Civil Rights Movement]
- [http://www.lulu.com/content/135246 Where Rebels Roost... Mississippi Civil Rights Revisited] Category:Rights Category:Social justice
- zh-tw:公民權利civil right the right to justice

Natural rights

Natural rights are rights derived from natural law. In most historical discussions they are limited to humans, and are therefore said to derive from human nature. John Locke argued that these rights are integrated with the very definition of what it means to be human. Many philosophers and statesmen have designed lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities. R. M. Hare has argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. Critics have argued that natural rights do not exist (in the sense that all rights are invented by human beings and are therefore by definition "artificial"). The attempt to derive rights from "natural law" or "human nature" is an example of the is-ought problem in philosophy, and, as noted above, different philosophers have created different lists of rights they consider to be natural. Critics have pointed to this lack of agreement as evidence for the claim that the idea of natural rights is merely a political tool. For instance, Jonathan Wallace has asserted that proclaiming some rights as "natural" is another way of saying "Stop asking questions" and "I have won this argument."

Sources

- Hart, H. L. A. "Are there any natural rights?" (Philosophical Review 64, 1955)
- Wallace, Jonathan "Natural Rights Don't Exist"

Life

:For other uses, see Life and Living Life is a multi-faceted concept. Life may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part, the period between the conception (or a point at which the entity can be considered to be an individualized being) and death of an organism, the condition of an entity that has been born (or reached the point in its existence at which it can be established to be alive) and has yet to die, and that which makes a living thing alive.

Defining the concept of life

How can one tell when an entity is a lifeform? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence. Also, loosely speaking, some theories are grounded in the basic assumption that "ideas have a life of their own".

A conventional definition

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence: #Growth, full development, maturity #Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste #Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion #Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself or consisting solely of entities that exhibit the quality of reproduction. #Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.

Exceptions to the conventional definition

These criteria are not without their uses, but their disparate nature makes them unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives; in fact, it is not difficult to find counterexamples and examples that require further elaboration. For example, according to the above definition, one could say:
- (most) mules and people who are infertile cannot reproduce and thus would not qualify as lifeforms. Also worker bees and other organisms living in colonies would not qualify; only the queen and the drones (or the whole colony) can be considered 'alive'.
- Fire and stars could be considered lifeforms.
- A virus does not grow and cannot reproduce outside of a host cell and thus would not qualify as a lifeform. Many individual organisms are incapable of reproduction and yet are still considered to be lifeforms; see mules and ants for examples. This is because the term "lifeform" applies on the level of entire species or of individual genes. (For example, see kin selection for information about one way by which non-reproducing individuals can still enhance the spread of their genes and the survival of their species.) It is important to keep in mind the difference between a "lifeform" and "a being that is alive." One example of sterility does not render the rest of the species a non-lifeform, any more than one dead animal renders the rest of the species dead. Note also that the two cases of fire and stars fitting the definition of life can be simply remedied by defining metabolism in a more biochemically exact way. Fundamentals of Biochemistry by Donald Voet and Judith Voet (ISBN 0471586501) defines metabolism as follows: "Metabolism is the overall process through which living systems acquire and utilize the free energy they need to carry out their various functions. They do so by coupling the exergonic reactions of nutrient oxidation to the endergonic processes required to maintain the living state, such as the performance of mechanical work, the active transport of molecules against concentration gradients, and the biosynthesis of complex molecules." This definition, in use by most biochemists, makes it clear that fire is not alive, because fire releases all the oxidative energy of its fuel as heat. (Note: Actually, the definition does not help much at all, for it is circular. What we are looking for, after all, is a definition of "living entity." We agreed that part of the definition is "capable of metabolism." We then tried to define "metabolism" in order to get clear on which entities are capable of it and which not. But the definition of "metabolism" just offered is in terms of living systems, and those are exactly what we are trying to define!) This could also be remedied by adding the requirement of locality, where there is an obvious structure that delineates the spatial extension of the living being, such as a cell membrane. A conceptual problem with saying that fire is life is that it collapses the distinction between "growth" and "reproduction." It is possible to think of a spreading flame as either growing or reproducing, but what would it mean to say that the same act is both growth and reproduction? Viruses reproduce, flames grow, some software programs mutate and evolve, future software programs will probably evince (even high-order) behavior, machines move, and some form of proto-life consisting of metabolizing cells without the ability to reproduce presumably existed. Still, some would not call these entities alive. Generally, all five characteristics are required for a population to be considered a lifeform.

Other definitions

Biologists who are content to focus on terrestrial organisms often note some additional signs of life, including these: # Living organisms contain molecular components such as: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins. # Living organisms require both energy and matter in order to continue living. # Living organisms are composed of at least one cell. # Living organisms maintain homeostasis for some period of time. # Species of living organisms will evolve. All life on Earth is based on the chemistry of carbon compounds. Some assert that this must be the case for all possible forms of life throughout the universe; others describe this position as 'carbon chauvinism'. The systemic definition is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). These objects are not to be confused with dissipative structures (e.g. fire). Variations of this definition include:
- Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana's definition of life (also widely used by Lynn Margulis) as an autopoietic (self-producing), water based, lipid-protein bound, carbon metabolic, nucleic acid replicated, protein readout system
- "a system of inferior negative feedbacks subordinated to a superior positive feedback" ([http://www.mol.uj.edu.pl/~benio/cyber_def_life.pdf J. theor Biol. 2001])
- Tom Kinch's definition of life as a highly organized auto-cannibalizing system naturally emerging from conditions common on planetary bodies, and consisting of a population of replicators capable of mutation, around each set of which a homeostatic metabolizing organism, which actively helps reproduce and/or protect the replicator(s), has evolved
- Stuart Kauffman's definition of life as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle
- Robert Pirsig's definition of life, found in his book Lila: An Inquiry into Morals, as that which maximizes its range of possible futures, in other words, that which makes decisions that result in the most future choices, or that which strives to keep its options open.
- A system converting entropy to negentropy, using flow of energy. Other definitions:
- That which seeks to continue its own existence (attributed to Clifford A. Schaffer).
- A self-replicating system that evolves through mutation.

Descent with modification: a "useful" characteristic

A useful characteristic upon which to base a definition of life is that of descent with modification: the ability of a life form to produce offspring that are like its parent or parents, but with the possibility of some variation due to chance. Descent with modification is sufficient by itself to allow evolution, assuming that the variations in the offspring allow for differential survival. The study of this form of heritability is called genetics. In all known life forms (assuming prions are not counted as such), the genetic material is primarily DNA or the related molecule, RNA. Another exception might be the software code of certain forms of viruses and programs created through genetic programming, but whether computer programs can be alive even by this definition is still a matter of some contention.

Origin of life

Main article: Origin of life There is no truly "standard" model of the origin of life, but most currently accepted scientific models build in one way or another on the following discoveries, which are listed roughly in order of postulated emergence: #Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment. #Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane. #Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce ribozymes, which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions. There are many different hypotheses regarding the path that might have been taken from simple organic molecules to protocells and metabolism. Many models fall into the "genes-first" category or the "metabolism-first" category, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that do not fit into either of these categories.

The possibility of extraterrestrial life

Main articles: Extraterrestrial life, Astrobiology As of 2005, Earth is the only planet in the universe known by humans to support life. The question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe remains open, but analyses such as the Drake equation have been used to estimate the probability of such life existing. There have been a number of claims of the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe, but none of these have yet survived scientific scrutiny. Today, the closest that scientists have come to finding extraterrestrial life is fossil evidence of possible bacterial life on Mars (via the ALH84001 meteorite). Searches for extraterrestrial life are currently focusing on planets and moons believed to possess liquid water, at present or in the past. Recent evidence from the NASA rovers Spirit and Opportunity supports the theory that Mars once had surface water. See Life on Mars for further discussion. Jupiter's moons are also considered good candidates for extraterrestrial life, especially Europa, which seems to possess oceans of liquid water. Other highly speculative and somewhat doubtful places for present or past life include the atmosphere of Venus, Titan cryovolcanoes, or even Enceladus.

References

- Kauffman, Stuart. The Adjacent Possible: A Talk with Stuart Kauffman. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2003 from [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman03/kauffman_index.html]

External links

- [http://www.lifetheory.com Express your theory and meaning of life]
- [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman03/kauffman_index.html "The Adjacent Possible: A Talk with Stuart Kauffman"]
- [http://www.quotesandpoem.com/poems/SelectedPoetryTopic/Life Poems and Quotes about life and living]
- [http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/ Animals and other living things: their interests, mental capacities and moral entitlements]
- [http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life Tree of Life Web Project - Life on Earth]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
- [http://web.archive.org/web/20041030074958/http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/DHB.html The Deep Hot Biosphere Theory (Thomas Gold)] Category:Biology ja:生命 ko:생명 ms:Benda hidup simple:Life

Liberty

:This article is about the concept. For other meanings, see Liberty (disambiguation). Liberty is generally thought of in English as a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority; it often also implies the right to exercise political rights such as standing for office. It is often equated with freedom (as by Quentin Skinner (1998) Liberty before Liberalism, citing Hobbes's Leviathan), although some have argued a distinction (eg David Hackett Fischer (2005) Liberty and Freedom: a visual history of America's founding ideas).

Western civilization

Liberty was greatly prized by many classical writers such as Aristotle, Demosthenes, Cicero and Tacitus, often in the context of democratic institutions. Christian theology developed elaborate ideas about the relationship between liberty and the morality of action, as is seen in the works of Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. The thinkers of the Enlightenment reasoned the assertion that law governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the king his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. The conception of law as a relationship between individuals, rather than families, came to the fore, and with it the increasing focus on individual liberty as a fundamental reality, given by "Nature and Nature's God," which, in the ideal state, would be as expansive as possible. The Enlightenment created then, among other ideas, liberty: that is, of a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. Later, more radical philosophies articulated themselves in the course of the French Revolution and in the 19th century. The first half of the 19th century for Western civilization was marked by a series of turbulent wars and revolutions, which gradually formed into an idea and doctrine now identified as individual liberty. The chief philosophical ground for "liberty" in this most recent period has been the idea of human rights and that human beings are too valuable to be in slavery (as well as the idea that human beings ought to control their own destiny). Much of this philosophy stems from religious views, although Christians, Jews, Muslims and followers of other religions have all practiced slavery in the past.

Eastern civilization

The Chinese sage Laozi warned against over-reaching governments, in a way analogous to the development in the western world of post-Lockean ideas of negative liberty. He taught that government by example and "not doing" (wú wéi) was superior to government by law and discipline.

Middle Eastern civilization

The Jewish religious tradition features several individuals who stood up to statist power at crucial moments, including of course Moses, who demanded that the Pharaoh of Egypt "let my people go." The Maccabees rebelled against mandatory assimilation to Greek culture and the Zealots (less successfully) rose against the Roman Empire. Although the idea of liberty is largely underdeveloped in traditional Middle Eastern philosophy and, more importantly, theology, Muslim jurists have long held that the legal tradition initiated by the Qur'an includes a principle of permissibility, or Ibahah, especially as applied to commercial transaction. "Nothing in them [voluntary transactions] is forbidden," said Ibn Taymiyyah, "unless God and His Messenger have decreed them to be forbidden." The idea is founded upon two verses in the Qur'an, 4:29 and 5:1.

Political thought

Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defence of individual liberty as the purpose of government. Two main strands are apparent. In continental Europe the term usually refers to economic liberalism, that is the right of individual to contract, trade and operate in a market free of constraint. In the United States it often refers to social liberalism, including the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. Both are core political issues, and highly contentious. A school of thought popular among US libertarians holds that there is no tenable distinction between the two sorts of liberty -- that they are, indeed, one and the same, to be protected (or opposed) together. In the context of U.S. constitutional law, for example, they point out that the constitution twice lists "life, liberty, and property" without making any distinctions within that troika. Individualists, such as Max Stirner, demanded the utmost respect for the liberty of the individual. From a very similar perspective from North America, primitivists like John Zerzan proclaimed that civilization not just the state would need to be abolished to foster liberty. David Hume wrote "Of Civil Liberty", in his book "Essays Moral and Political" (first ed. 1741-2) Some in the US see protecting the ideal of liberty as a conservative policy, because this would conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider is at the heart of the American constitution. Some think liberty is almost synonymous with democracy, at least in one sense of that word, while others see conflicts or even opposition between the two concepts. See also: Libertarians, Positive liberty, Negative liberty

Phrases

Liberty can refer to various concepts of freedom.
- "Liberty of opinion";
- "Liberty of worship";
- "Perfect liberty"; :See also Types of freedom

Quotes

Some notable quotations that include liberty are:
- "The defining principle of democracy is liberty, one aspect of which is having a share in ruling." Aristotle, Politics
- "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" — Rupertus Meldenius
- "Give me liberty or give me death!" — Patrick Henry
- "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Id., Amendment XIV.
- "Every law is an infringement upon liberty." Jeremy Bentham
- "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819
- "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." John Stewart Mill, On Liberty

Statues and monuments

A temple was erected to the goddess Liberty on the Aventine Hill in Rome by the father of Tiberius Gracchus during the second Punic War. A statue of the goddess Liberty was also put up by Clodius on the site of Cicero's house after it had been pulled down. A Statue of Liberty now exists at the entrance to New York harbour in the United States. The copper statue of the goddess of Liberty was a present from the Republic of France, as a centennial gift to the US and a sign of friendship between the two nations. The pedestal was constructed by the United States. The Statue of Liberty is often used as a symbol of the ideals of the United States, and in particular of liberty in general; as such it is a favored symbol of US libertarians. The Liberty Memorial is dedicated to World War I and World War II victories for liberty against the Axis.

External links

- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on negative and positive liberty]
- [http://www.freestateproject.org Free State Project] ja:自由 th:เสรีภาพ Category:Freedom

Social contract

:For political policies of the same name see Bob Rae's Social Contract (Ontario), Harold Wilson's Social Contract (Britain), Malaysia's Social contract (Malaysia), and The Social Contract Press, for the American printing company. Social contract (or contractarianism) is a phrase used in philosophy, political science and sociology to denote a real or hypothetical agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society or by not violating the contract. The social contract, as a political theory, explains the origin and purpose of the state and of human rights. The essence of the theory (in its most common form, namely the one proposed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau) is as follows: In order to live in society, human beings agree to an implicit social contract, which gives them certain rights in return for giving up certain freedoms they would have in a state of nature. Thus, the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals are the terms of the social contract, and the state is the entity created for the purpose of enforcing that contract. Also, the people may change the terms of the contract if they so desire; rights and responsibilities are not fixed or "natural". However, more rights always entail more responsibilities, and fewer responsibilities always entail fewer rights.

History

Contract theory is certainly not new; in Plato's Republic (c.360 BC) Glaucon suggests that justice is a 'pact' among rational egoists, while Cicero (106-43 BC) posited such a theory in the latter stages of the Roman Republic. The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who contended that people in a state of nature ceded their individual rights to a strong sovereign in return for his protection, so social contract evolves out of pragmatic self-interest. John Locke (1634-1704) also posited a contract theory; however, unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that people contracted with one another for a particular kind of government, and that they could modify or even abolish the government. Thus Locke's vision was that of an innate, essential human rationality constituting 'natural law'. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, outlined a different version of contract theory. Rousseau's theory has many similarities with the individualist Lockean tradition, but also departs from it on many significant points. For example, Rousseau theory asserts that an individual should submit is own will to the "general will," and is therefore more collectivist than individualist. This theory has already been presented in the second introductory paragraph of this article, since Rousseau's version of the social contract is the one most often associated with the term "social contract" itself. It is also worth noting that in the century following Rousseau's death, his theories were an important influence in the formation of the socialist movement. Individualist anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that social contract is not between individuals and the state, but between individuals themselves to refrain from governing each other: "What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, …is substituted for that of distributive justice…. Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other" (General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century). John Rawls (1921-2002) proposed a contractarian approach that has a decidedly Kantian flavour, whereby rational people in a hypothetical "original position," setting aside their individual preferences and capacities under a "veil of ignorance," would agree to certain, general principles of justice .

Criticism

Normally, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties it agree to it voluntarily, that is, no one has been pressured under the threat of physical force to enter into it. Lysander Spooner argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all. In his 1986 book Law's Empire, positivist Ronald Dworkin touches briefly on social contract theory, firstly distinguishing between the use of social contract theory in an ethical sense, to establish the character or content of justice (such as John Rawls' A Theory of Justice) and its use in a jurisprudential sense as a basis for legitimate government. Dworkin argues (see Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire, Fontana Press, 1986, p192-3) that if every citizen were a party to an actual, historical agreement to accept and obey political decisions in the way his community's political decisions are in fact taken then the historical fact of agreement would provide at least a good prima facie case for coercion even in ordinary politics: :So some political philsophers have been tempted to say that we have in fact agreed to a social contract of that kind tacitly, by just not emigrating when we reach the age of consent. But no one can argue that very long with a straight face. Consent cannot be binding on people, in the way this argument requires, unless it is given more freely, and with more genuine alternate choice, than just by declining to build a life from nothing under a foreign flag. And even if the consent were genuine, the argument would fail as an argument for legitimacy, because a person leaves one sovereign only to join another; he has no choice to be free from sovereigns altogether. A typical counterargument is that the choice is not limited to tacit consent to the status quo vs. expatriation, but also includes accepting the contract, then working to alter the parts that are disagreed with, as by participating in the political process.

A first principles formulation and nature of the social contract

From the biology of sexual reproduction, humans must cohabit at for a short time for procreation, with further contact arising by chance. As long as humans congregate, each will need protection from the potentially malicious others. This protection may be offered by the individual themselves or by another person for the individual. In a climate of hostiles, individuals protecting themselves may leave little time for personal pursuits, and may lead to their deaths. Over time, protection is generally offered by a specific person or few, typically the most powerful or strong, being the best equipped to handle conflict. This tradeoff allows greater production from all other members at the cost of the production of a few. This is a primal example of the gains of trade through comparative advantage. However, the protector cannot be everywhere at once. As such, the malicious ones need to fear something greater than themselves to keep the congregation from dispersing. The threat of attack - fear - must thus be everpresent. If people attack one another then there will probably be no net benefit from congregation. Thus, human societies greater than one person will always need something to fear: the givers of force. In small groups this is the leader. In larger groups it is the military and/or police, which are themselves hierarchical in nature, having their own leaders whom ultimately report to one person. Thus, human societies must always be hierarchical. In effect, the community trades fear of the malicious few, to a legitimised fear of a malicious few. This decision also means individual members of the community have a reduced right to decide their own future, as they can be coerced by the leader, to a limit which is decided by each member of the group. Resistance to the leader is a threat to this control. People who refuse to consent will always be removed forcefully, whether by banishment, prison or death, or directed to change through whatever incentives or techniques are available. If a person wanted to leave their community and form their own, in ancient times, this was a simple matter of moving to an uninhabted area. However, in the modern age, this is highly problematic, as all habitable areas are controlled by states. Not only does a secession damage the group through the loss of a member but it emboldens others to leave and damages the collective. Thus, as protector of the collective (and their own privileged position within that collective), the leader will always attack secession with force. Hence, any secession attempts must have the backing of the force equivalent to that of the leader. In the modern state, where citizens are born, there can be no choice but to accept the status quo, as for an individual citizen, force equivalent to that of the leader will be quite improbable to amass. There has almost never been any backing to the statement that for some, the benefits of joining a nation state do not outweigh the benefits of remaining alone. There has never been a state which has freely offered the choice of remaining "alone". However, it can also be argued that humans who do not join societies ultimately have a far lower chance of passing on their genetic material. and will eventually become victims of natural selection, whether it be lack of mates, or through attrition in the protection process. Thus societal living has provided a survival advantage, and through the pressure of evolution, society as an entity has become dominant over time.

References

- Robinson, Dave & Groves, Judy (2003). Introducing Political Philosophy. Icon Books. ISBN 1-84046-450-X.

External links

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/ Contractarianism]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/ Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract]
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- [http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm Social contract theory]
- [http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/ The Contractarian Theory of Morals:FAQ]
- [http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm Ebook: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT by Rousseau] ja:社会契約 simple:Social contract Category:Political philosophy

State of nature

"State of nature" is a term in political philosophy used to describe the hypothetical or empirical condition of humanity when or if government did not exist. Alternately, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of law comes into being. Some have thought that there was a time before any government, any official monopoly on the initiation of the use of violence, came into being. The concept of a state of nature is an integral part of social contract theories.

History

The concept of a state of nature was first posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a right to do any thing to preserve their own liberty or safety. Hobbes believed that human beings in the state of nature would behave "badly" towards one another ("badly" in the sense of the morality that we would commonly apply: but Hobbes argued that people had every right to defend themselves by whatever means, in the absence of order). Famously, he believed that such a condition would lead to a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes's negative view of human character was shaped at least in part by the civil war in England at the time and by the Christian doctrines of original sin and total depravity; the Christian tradition is generally at one with Hobbes in supporting the need for government. However, Hobbes would strongly disagree with the Christian view of the innate, inherent, and inescapable sinfulness of human beings: in Hobbes's view, these problems are soluble by good government. As he incisively stated in its "De cive. Epistola dedicatoria", borrowing a well known aphorism from Plautus's Asinaria: "homo homini lupus" (man is wolf to man). Hobbes's view was challenged in the eighteenth century by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who affirmed instead that people in a state of nature would be born good; their bad habits are the products of civilization, and specifically social hierarchies, property, and markets. Rousseau's view underlines much of the Romantic period's political thinking, including the thought of Karl Marx. John Locke further explores the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written in the wake of England's Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke argued that unlimited government leads to abuses and that government should be from the people and that it should be limited so as not to violate the natural rights of people. Locke states that the entire population has the right to punish an offender so that he will not commit the crime again and so that others will be deterred from moral law breaking. John Rawls used what amounted to an artificial state of nature. To develop his Theory of Justice, Rawls places everyone in the original position. The original position is a hypothetical state of nature used as a thought experiment to develop Rawl's theory of justice. People in the original position have no society and are under a veil of ignorance that prevents them from knowing how they may benefit from society. They do not know if they will be smart or dumb, rich or poor, or anything else about their fortunes and abilities. Rawls reasons that people in the original position would want a society where they had their basic liberties protected and where they had some economic guarantees as well. If society were to be constructed from scratch through a social agreement between individuals, these principles would be the expected basis of such an agreement. Thus, these principles should form the basis of real, modern societies since everyone should consent to them if society were organized from scratch in fair agreements.

Between nations

In Hobbes's view, once a civil government is instituted, the state of nature has disappeared between individuals because of the civil power which exists to enforce contracts. Between nations, however, no such power exists and therefore nations have the same rights to preserve themselves - including making war - as individuals possessed. Rawls also examines the state of nature between nations. In his work the Law of Peoples, Rawls applies a modified version of his original position thought experiment to international relations. Rawls says that people, not states, form the basic unit that should be examined. States should be encouraged to follow the principles from Rawls's earlier Theory of Justice. Democracy seems like it would be the most logical means of accomplishing these goals, but benign non-democracies should be seen as acceptable at the international stage. Rawls develops eight principles for how people should act on an international stage. Category:Political philosophy ja:自然状態

Custom (law)

In law, custom, or customary law consists of established patterns of behaviour that can be objectively verified within a particular social setting. Generally, customary law exists where
- a certain legal practice is observed; and
- the relevant actors consider it to be law (opinio iuris).

Customary law and codification

The modern codification of civil law developed out of the customs, or coutumes of the middle ages, expressions of law that developed in particular communities and slowly collected and written down by local jurists. Such customs acquired the force of law when they became the undisputed rule by which certain entitlements (rights) or obligations were regulated between members of a community.

International law

In international law, customary law refers to the Law of Nations or the legal norms that have developed through the customary exchanges between states over time, whether based on diplomacy or aggression. Essentially, legal obligations are believed to arise between states to carry out their affairs consistently with past accepted conduct. These customs can also change based on the acceptance or rejection by states of particular acts. Some principles of customary law have achieved the force of peremptory norms, which cannot be violated or altered except by a norm of comparable strength. These norms are said to gain their strength from universal acceptance, such as the prohibitions against genocide and slavery. Customary international law can be distinguished from treaty law, which consists of explicit agreements between nations to assume obligations. Many treaties, however, are attempts to codify pre-existing customary law.

Customary law within contemporary legal systems

Customary law may also be relevant within jurisdictions following another legal tradition such as civil law in fields or subfields of law where no legislative enactment exists. For example, in Austria, scholars of private law often claim that customary law continues to exist, whereas public law scholars dispute this claim. In any case, it is hard to find any practically relevant examples.

Religious law

United States

:For alternative meanings, see the disambiguation page for US, USA, United States, or American. The United States of America is a federal democratic republic situated primarily in central North America. It comprises 50 states and one federal district, and has several territories. It is also referred to, with varying formality, as the United States, the U.S., the U.S.A., the States, or simply and most commonly, America. The official founding date of the United States is July 4, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress—representing thirteen British colonies—adopted the Declaration of Independence. However, the structure of the government was profoundly changed in 1788, when the states replaced the Articles of Confederation with the United States Constitution. The date on which each of the fifty states adopted the Constitution is typically regarded as the date that state "entered the Union" (became part of the United States). Since the mid-20th century, following World War II, the United States has emerged as a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological, and cultural affairs.

Geography and climate

The United States shares land borders with Canada (to the north) and Mexico (to the south), and territorial water boundaries with Canada, Russia, the Bahamas, and numerous smaller nations. It is otherwise bounded by the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, in the west; the Arctic Ocean, in the northernmost areas; and the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, in the eastern and southeastern areas. Forty-eight of the states are in the single region between Canada and Mexico; this group is referred to, with varying precision and formality, as the continental or contiguous United States, sometimes abbreviated CONUS, and as the Lower 48. Alaska, which is not included in the term contiguous United States, is at the northwestern end of North America, separated from the Lower 48 by Canada. The archipelago of Hawaii is in the Pacific Ocean. The capital city, Washington, District of Columbia is a federal district located on land donated by the state of Maryland. (Virginia also donated land, but it was returned in 1847.) The United States also has overseas territories with varying levels of independence and organization. When inland water is included in the total area, only Russia and Canada are larger than the United States; if inland water is excluded, China ranks third and the U.S. ranks fourth. The United States' total area is 3,718,711 square miles (9,631,418 km²), of which land makes up 3,537,438 square miles (9,161,923 km²) and water makes up 181,273 square miles (469,495 km²). The United States' landscape is one of the most varied among those of the world's nations: among its many features are temperate forestland and rolling hills, on the east coast; mangrove, in Florida; the Great Plains, in the center of the country; the Mississippi–Missouri river system; the Great Lakes, four of the five of which are shared with Canada; the Rocky Mountains, west of the Great Plains; deserts and temperate coastal zones, west of the Rocky Mountains; and temperate rain forests, in the Pacific northwest. Alaska's tundra, and the volcanic, tropical islands of Hawaii add to the geographic diversity. Hawaii The climate varies along with the landscape, from tropical in Hawaii and southern Florida to tundra in Alaska and atop some of the highest mountains. Most of the North and East experience a temperate continental climate, with warm summers and cold winters. Most of the South experiences a subtropical humid climate with mild winters and long, hot, humid summers. Rainfall decreases markedly from the humid forests of the Eastern Great Plains to the semi-arid shortgrass prairies on the high plains abutting the Rocky Mountains. Arid deserts, including the Mojave, extend through the lowlands and valleys of the southwest, from westernmost Texas to California and northward throughout much of Nevada. Some parts of California have a Mediterranean climate. Rainforests line the windward mountains of the Pacific Northwest from Oregon to Alaska.

History

American history started with the migration of people from Asia across the Bering land bridge approximately 12,000 years ago following large animals that they hunted into the Americas. These Native Americans left evidence of their presence in petroglyphs, burial mounds, and other artifacts. It is estimated that 2-9 million people lived in the territory now occupied by the U.S. before European contact, and the subsequent introduction of foreign diseases such as small pox that greatly diminished the native populations. Some advanced societies were the Anasazi of the southwest, who inhabited Chaco Canyon, and the Woodland Indians, who built Cahokia, located near present-day St Louis, a city with a population of 40,000 at its peak in AD 1200. Vikings first visited North America around 1000, but did not settle permanently. Following the discovery voyages of Christopher Columbus around 1492, other Europeans began to explore and settle there. During the 1500s and 1600s, the Spanish settled parts of the present-day Southwest and Florida, founding St. Augustine, Florida in 1565 and Santa Fe (in what is now New Mexico) in 1607. The first successful English settlement was at Jamestown, Virginia, also in 1607. Within the next two decades, several Dutch settlements, including New Amsterdam (the predecessor to New York City), were established in what are now the states of New York and New Jersey. In 1637, Sweden established a colony at Fort Christina (in what is now Delaware), but lost the settlement to the Dutch in 1655. This was followed by extensive British settlement of the east coast. The British colonists remained relatively undisturbed by their home country until after the French and Indian War, when France ceded Canada and the Great Lakes region to Britain. Britain then imposed taxes on the 13 colonies, widely regarded by the colonists as unfair because they were denied representation in the British Parliament. Tensions between Britain and the colonists increased, and the thirteen colonies eventually rebelled against British rule. British Parliament, George Washington (1789-1797).]] In 1776, the 13 colonies split from Great Britain and formed the United States, the world's first constitutional and democratic federal republic, after their Declaration of Independence of that year, and the Revolutionary War (1775 to 1783). The original political structure was a confederation in 1777, ratified in 1781 as the Articles of Confederation. After long debate, this was supplanted by the Constitution in 1789, forming a more centralized federal government. Prior to all these was the Albany Congress in 1754, in which a union was first seriously proposed. From early colonial times, there was a shortage of labor, which encouraged unfree labor, particularly indentured servitude and slavery. In the mid-19th century, a major division occurred in the United States over the issue of states' rights and the expansion of slavery. The northern states had become opposed to slavery, while the southern states saw it as necessary for the continued success of southern agriculture and wanted it expanded to the territories. Several federal laws were passed in an attempt to settle the dispute, including the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. The dispute reached a crisis in 1861, when seven southern states seceded¹ from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, leading to the Civil War. Soon after the war began, four more southern states seceded. During the war, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, mandating the freedom of all slaves in states in rebellion, though full emancipation did not take place until after the end of the war in 1865, the dissolution of the Confederacy, and the Thirteenth Amendment took effect. The Civil War effectively ended the question of a state's right to secede, and is widely accepted as a major turning point after which the federal government became more powerful than state governments. Thirteenth Amendment). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of Manifest Destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward throughout history. [http://americanart.si.edu/t2go/1lw/1931.6.1.html (more)] ]] During the 19th century, many new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the continent. Manifest Destiny was a philosophy that encouraged westward expansion in the United States. As the population of the Eastern states grew and as a steady increase of immigrants entered the country, settlers moved steadily westward across North America. In the process, the U.S. displaced most American Indian nations. This displacement of American Indians continues to be a matter of contention in the U.S. with many tribes attempting to assert their original claims to various lands. In some areas American Indian populations were reduced by foreign diseases contracted through contact with European settlers, and US settlers acquired those emptied lands. In other instances American Indians were removed from their traditional lands by force. Though some would say the U.S. was not a colonial power until the Spanish-American War when it acquired Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, the dominion exercised over land in North America the United States claimed is essentially colonial. The Philippines became independent in 1946. During this period, the nation also became an industrial power. This continued into the 20th century, which has been termed "the American Century" because of the nation's overriding influence on the world. The US became a center for innovation and technological development; major technologies that America either developed or was greatly involved in improving include the telephone, television, computer, the Internet, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, aviation, and aeronautics. In addition to the Civil War, another major traumatic experience for the nation was the Great Depression (1929 to 1939). The nation has also taken part in several major foreign wars, including World War I and World War II (in both of which the US later joined the Allies). During the Cold War, the US was a major player in the Korean War and Vietnam War, and, along with the Soviet Union, was considered one of the world's two "superpowers". With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the world's leading economic and military power. Beginning in the 1990s, the United States became very involved in police actions and peacekeeping, including actions in Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and Liberia, and the first Persian Gulf War driving Iraq out of Kuwait. After attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the United States and other allied nations found themselves involved in what has come to be called the "War on Terrorism," which has primarily encompassed military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Government

Iraq of the United States.]]

Republic and suffrage

The United States is an example of a constitutional republic, with a government composed of and operating through a set of limited powers imposed by its design and enumerated in the United States Constitution. Specifically, the nation operates as a presidential democracy. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Officials of each of these levels are either elected by eligible voters via secret ballot or appointed by other elected officials. Americans enjoy almost universal suffrage from the age of 18 regardless of race, sex, or wealth. There are some limits, however: felons are disenfranchised and in some states former felons are likewise. Furthermore, the national representation of territories and the federal district of Washington, DC in Congress is limited: residents of the District of Columbia are subject to federal laws and federal taxes but their only Congressional representative is a non-voting delegate.

Federal government

The federal government is the national government, comprising the Legislative Branch (led by Congress), the Executive Branch (led by the President), and the Judicial Branch (led by the Supreme Court). These three branches were designed to apply checks and balances on each other. The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to defense, foreign affairs, the issuing and management of currency, the management of trade and relations between the states, and the protection of human rights. In addition to these explicitly stated powers, the federal government—with the assistance of the Supreme Court—has gradually extended these powers into such areas as welfare and education, on the basis of the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution.

The Congress

necessary and proper The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives consists of 435 members, each of whom represents a congressional district and serves for a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states by population; in contrast, each state has two Senators, regardless of population. There are a total of 100 senators, who serve six-year terms. The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution also includes the necessary-and-proper clause, which grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

The President

necessary-and-proper clause At the top level of the executive branch is the President of the United States. The President and Vice-President are elected as 'running mates' for four-year terms by the Electoral College, for which each state, as well as the District of Columbia, is allocated a number of seats based on its representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D. C.) in both houses of Congress (see U.S. Electoral College). The relationship between the President and the Congress reflects that between the English monarchy and parliament at the time of the framing of the United States Constitution. Congress can legislate to constrain the President's executive power, even with respect to his or her command of the armed forces; however, this power is used only very rarely—a notable example was the constraint placed on President Richard Nixon's strategy of bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War. The President cannot directly propose legislation, and must rely on supporters in Congress to promote his or her legislative agenda. The President's signature is required to turn congressional bills into law; in this respect, the President has the power—only occasionally used—to veto congressional legislation. Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. The ultimate power of Congress over the President is that of impeachment or removal of the elected President through a House vote, a Senate trial, and a Senate vote. The threat of using this power has had major political ramifications in the cases of Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. The President makes around 2,000 executive appointments, including members of the Cabinet and ambassadors, which must be approved by the Senate; the President can also issue executive orders and pardons, and has other Constitutional duties, among them the requirement to give a State of the Union address to Congress once a year. Although the President's constitutional role may appear to be constrained, in practice, the office carries enormous prestige that typically eclipses the power of Congress: the Presidency has justifiably been referred to as 'the most powerful office in the world'. The Vice President is first in the line of succession, and is the President of the Senate ex officio, with the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. The members of the President's Cabinet are responsible for administering the various departments of state, including the Department of Defense, the Justice Department, and the State Department. These departments and department heads have considerable regulatory and political power, and it is they who are responsible for executing federal laws and regulations. George W. Bush is the 43rd President, currently serving his second term.

The Courts

George W. Bush The highest court is the Supreme Court, which consists of nine justices. The court deals with federal and constitutional matters, and can declare legislation made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law and creating precedent for future law and decisions. Below the Supreme Court are the courts of appeals, and below them in turn are the district courts, which are the general trial courts for federal law. Separate from, but not entirely independent of, this federal court system are the individual court systems of each state, each dealing with its own laws and having its own judicial rules and procedures. A case may be appealed from a state court to a federal court only if there is a federal question; the supreme court of each state is the final authority on the interpretation of that state's laws and constitution.

State and local governments

supreme court of each state. Note that Alaska and Hawaii are shown at different scales, and that the Aleutian Islands and the uninhabited Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are omitted from this map.]] The state governments have the greatest influence over people's daily lives. Each state has its own written constitution and has different laws. There are sometimes great differences in law and procedure between the different states, concerning issues such as prope