mayowa_o

The UK Government has faced criticism for its new settlement scheme for Afghan refugees fleeing Taliban rule.

• In the Spring of 2021, Western forces began to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan. The Taliban rapidly began to take an offensive, controlling more and more urban areas and establishing their presence.

• On 15 August, the Taliban captured the capital city of Kabul, causing hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians to attempt to flee the country.

• Recently, the UK Government has committed to a settlement scheme which would see 5,000 vulnerable Afghans brought to the UK in the first year of the programme, and 20,000 more in the coming years.

• The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has claimed that the UK cannot accommodate 20,000 Afghans “in one go”. Despite this, the scheme has faced heavy criticism by opposition parties, human rights activists and the Government’s own backbench MPs for not being generous enough.

The UK has contributed to the instability in Afghanistan for centuries. The Government’s claim that we cannot take in 20,000 refugees “in one go” demonstrates a complete disregard for their moral responsibility to ensure the welfare of these innocent civilians.

• In 2001, the UK sent troops into Afghanistan as a fulfilment of its NATO duties after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US.

• However, UK involvement in Afghanistan spans centuries, beginning in the 19th century when they took military action in the country on multiple occasions in order to create a buffer between British India and the expanding Russian Empire, and continuing into the 20th century for a period of time where Afghanistan was a protectorate under the British Empire.

• During the Cold War, the British aided the Mujahideen in their anti-Soviet military campaigns in Afghanistan, using the civil war as a proxy war for the wider ideological conflict between capitalism and communism. Over the years, this group would split into factions, one of them being the Taliban. When this group eventually focused their efforts towards fighting the West, the UK would participate in 20 years of military campaigns which would ravage the country upheave the lives of civilians.

• Now that the Taliban has re-established control over the country, the UK Government are refusing to be more accommodating in their settlement scheme, especially when past evidence highlights the fact that the UK is already one of the least generous countries in the West to take in Afghanistan refugees in recent years.

• If anything, the years of involvement that the UK has had in Afghanistan places upon them a responsibility to help more innocent victims than it is currently prepared to do.

Copyright is capable of protecting smaller creatives from exploitation by large corporates. What is needed to achieve this on a wider scale are changes within the law and an improvement in access to justice, rather than a complete overhaul of the whole system.

• In general terms, copyright law gives the author of a piece of work private rights over the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. For example, copyright law gives the author of a book rights over the exact words used of a book, rather than the idea or theme of the book.

• Copyright law has been justifiably criticised for several reasons. One main criticism is that it stifles creativity by placing lengthy terms on the period before the work can enter the public domain. It has also been heavily criticised for being used to encourage monopolies and the exploitation of smaller creatives by larger corporations. For example, individuals often do not have the money to bring forward or defend a copyright claim and so they end up giving up their cases altogether.

• However, it should also be acknowledged that copyright provides the opportunity for individuals to profit from their work. If there are no copyright laws at all, through which medium will smaller creators be able to fight for this right? Indeed, the counter-argument is that they are unable to do this even under the present system since corporations have the money to defend such claims. Regardless, taking away a creator’s right to defend any claim at all is counter-intuitive and thus exacerbates the problem.

• In light of these issues, we could argue that copyright laws could be reformed in a way that allows works to enter the public domain after a shorter period of time (e.g. immediately after the death of the author rather than 100+ years later). Furthermore, improving access to justice, rather than abolishing copyright, would be a better way to ensure that smaller creators get the recognition that they deserve.

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsNVKetbFDY
https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/three-reasons-for-copyright-protection

Privatizing social security may not provide as much security to one’s income as suggested.

• The creation of private social security accounts means that the trust funds will be subject to the market forces operating in Wall Street. As a result, there is no guaranteed amount of retirement income. This negatively impacts generations who work through major financial crises. In light of this, Millennials and Generation Z are likely to be more detrimentally affected by the privatization of social security by having to live through the ripple effects of the 2008 financial crisis, the ongoing pandemic and the forecasted threat that climate change poses to the economy.

• Moreover, the transition to private social security accounts may actually hinder the extent of choice that people have over their finances. This is because as wealthier people take their money out of social security and into private accounts, the amount of funds left for social security shrinks. Consequently, poorer people may be forced to move their assets into private accounts, leaving them to be exploited by the forces of Wall Street.

Break Up Google is not the only way that governments have tried to tackle the monopolies posed by Big Tech.

• In 2018, Facebook and the data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica faced heavy scrutiny for harvesting psychological data about Facebook users in order to influence their choices for the 2016 US presidential election.

• In June 2021, G7 leaders agreed to commit to a global minimum corporation tax rate of at least 15%. This means that countries such as Amazon, Google and Facebook will pay more tax in the countries that they operate in than they currently do.

• In July 2021, Amazon was fined €746mil by the EU for processing personal data in violation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

What is equal and what is fair are two different concepts. Equality of opportunity ensures that people benefit from their individual efforts to do better, so this is the goal that we should aim for.

A good society should be one that is fair and just. Equality differs from fairness as it measures status, quantity and value. In the pursuit to achieve a just society, the three main strands of socialism accept the concept of equality to varying degrees:

• Fundamentalists: Fundamentalist socialists such as communists and Marxists commit to absolute equality of outcome. They strive for a complete redistribution of wealth, full employment and the abolition of private property. Marx’s idea of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” reflects the idea of common ownership and equal gain in society.

• Revisionists: Revisionist socialists, otherwise known as social democrats, advocate for relative economic equality. They attempt to humanize capitalism through regulations and the welfare state, but ultimately allow it due to its ability to drive innovation.

• Neo-revisionists: Neo-revisionist socialists, also known as Third Way socialists, greatly favour equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. They strive to achieve a meritocracy where individuals are given the tools to achieve their full potential by championing initiatives such as access to education and the implementation of some form of a welfare state, even if this means accepting both economic and social inequality.

In my view, ensuring equality of opportunity is the most effective way for individuals to realize their own potential by giving them the chance to make use of their individual responsibility to map out their own path in life. Whilst this means that society may not be equal in an absolute sense, equality ensures that society is fair by ensuring that people get what they have worked hard for.

Nuclear energy has the potential to become a leading source of clean energy. However, we should not so easily discard the dangers of implementing this regime on a larger scale.

There are several benefits to using nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, namely:

• It is a clean energy source which produces more than half of the US’ emissions-free electricity every year;

• It is the most reliable energy source, for example in 2019, nuclear plants in the US operated at full power for more than 92% of the time;

• The nuclear energy industry will create more jobs.

However, one should be incredibly cautious as to how quickly nuclear energy is incorporated into the carbon reduction regime. The world has already witnessed the devastating long-term effects of an improper use of nuclear energy, such as the attacks on Fukushima and Nagasaki, as well as the accident in Chernobyl. In light of this, states need to invest extensively in developing technologies which can safely produce, maintain and dispose of nuclear energy at a world-wide commercial level. Moreover, the world-wide production of nuclear energy needs to be met with the political assurance among the international community that it will not be used for ill.

Evidence suggests that jury trials have existed in some form for more than a millennium. However, this does not mean that they are exempt from criticism.

• Historians have been unable to pinpoint exactly where trial by jury was first practiced in the world, although there is evidence that it existed in places like ancient Scandinavian countries and the Roman Empire.

• In England, historians have argued that trial by jury may have been a concept that existed in a somewhat similar form during the Anglo-Saxon period, and then was developed by the Normans after 1066. The subsequent removal of other harrowing forms of trial such as trial by ordeal and trial by battle also lead to the increase in the use of jury trials for both civil and criminal cases.

• A more modern form of trial by jury was spread across the world due to events such as the growth of the British Empire and the impact of the French Revolution.

• Today, jury trials have been referred to as “the lamp which shows that freedom lives”, although they have also been criticised for allowing people’s personal prejudices to obstruct the administration of justice.

Commentators have suggested that globalisation is the main reason for the apparent demise of the nation state.

A nation state is an entity that has a defined territory, a single government that rules over a population and the recognition of the global community. Over the past few decades, there have been suggestions that the nation state is no longer fit for purpose for the following reasons:

• Controlling capital: Global capitalism has led to the growth of multinational corporations which operate on a transnational scale. They are unrestricted by borders and so international regulators such as the World Bank and the WTO have a role to play in this. States have found difficulties in taxing the profits of these companies, especially tech firms such as Google and Amazon, and thus struggle to deal with the planetary wealth inequalities that arise from this.

• Global problems: Nowadays, problems rarely occur on a national scale. With threats such as pandemics, terrorism and climate change, states have consistently demonstrated that individual action is not enough to tackle these issues.

• Migration: According to UN research, the global population of migrants has increased from 2.8% in 2000 to 3.5% in 2019. In light of this, it has been suggested that the nation state, which emphasises the importance of a shared cultural identity, may be unequipped for the upward trend in migration in the next decade.

In my opinion, I believe that the concept of a nation state is not entirely obsolete as it is still able to provide its citizens with some sense of security and identity. Regardless, the points mentioned above provide strong evidence that the nation state is not as strong an actor in international affairs as it once was.

It is quite likely that at least some of the settlers were killed by the native islanders or by disease.

• In August 1587, a group of 115 English settlers landed on Roanoke Island, just off the coast of what is now North Carolina. The governor of the colony, John White, departed on a journey back to England to retrieve supplies, but ended up being caught in a three-year naval war with Spain. When he finally returned to Roanoke in 1590, the settlers were nowhere to be found.

• Whilst it is not impossible that the settlers moved to another area and assimilated with the natives elsewhere, it is likely that at least some of them died in some way.

• One theory for this is that they faced violence from the Native Americans. This is because two English groups had already visited Roanoke to explore the area. The second group, in particular, was driven out by the unsurprisingly hostile natives who claimed that they were using too many of the island’s resources. As such, when the third group arrived to set up a permanent colony, it is likely that the Native Americans were not so willing to let them stay around.

• Another theory for this is that the settlers were the victims of New World diseases which they had no immunity to.

Hamlet is most certainly emotional, but definitely not insane.

Hamlet is emotional, grief-stricken existentialist whose deep moments of introspection at times bordered the realms of narcissism. Regardless, there is enough evidence to suggest that he always knew what he was doing, even until the very end:

• Grief-stricken: Hamlet makes his first appearance in Act 1 Scene 2, which takes place just two months after his beloved father’s death. He is bitter at his mother’s union with his uncle, who we later learn poisoned Hamlet’s father to become King. These events lead him to question the meaning of life and the true nature of humanity throughout the play. It is these deep philosophical soliloquys which can serve as evidence for Hamlet’s soundness of mind.

• Calculating: Hamlet is a scholar, and thus uses his wit and intellect to toy with those who he sees as foolish. He does this by making them believe that he is mad, whilst weaving clever yet cruel insults into his speeches. Such examples of this can be found during his interactions with Polonius and his old friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

• Self-aware: In the second half of the play, Hamlet becomes more irate and determined to avenge his father’s murder. This leads him to mistreat his love interest Ophelia and carelessly murder her father Polonius, a combination of which drives Ophelia to actual madness and her own death. Yet despite all of this, we could argue that Hamlet remains self-aware throughout the play. For example, he is critical of his inaction for hesitating to expose Claudius for his crimes. He also comes to a state of mutual forgiveness towards Laertes who he had wronged in the play, too. These examples demonstrate that Hamlet always knew what he was doing, and therefore always had control over his mind.

All in all, Hamlet is a multi-faceted character. His deep flaws, confusion and outbursts do not make him insane, but rather more human. It is this fact that makes him, in my opinion, one of Shakespeare’s most captivating protagonists.

The majority of countries in the world have made at least some commitments to tackling climate change, although research suggests that this may not be enough.

For context, let’s have a look at previous world efforts to tackle climate change:

• The Paris Agreement 2015: The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty with 191 signatories. Its main goal is to prevent the Earth’s average temperature from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius, in comparison to pre-industrial levels. States must try to keep the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as well as work towards a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.

• The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008: The Climate Change Act 2008 initially committed the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. In 2019, this Act was amended to achieving net zero emissions.

• Legal disputes in Australia: In 2021, the Federal Court of Australia declared that the country’s Environment Minister has a “duty to take reasonable care” that young people won’t be harmed or killed by carbon dioxide emissions if a coalmine expansion is approved.

Despite these efforts, UN research suggests that the world is still on track for more than a 3 degree increase in the global temperature, which will have devastating consequences.

The mere fact that there are phenotypical differences between individuals is no excuse to discriminate against each other.

• It is evident that genetics can lead people to possess a range of physical characteristics, physical abilities and, to a small extent, intelligence.

• However, it should be noted that whilst science can give us factual information about the world around us, it cannot assign any normative value to such facts. As such, the decision taken by some to discriminate based on physical or other characteristics is not rooted in science at all, but rather their own personal prejudices which have resulted in flawed pseudoscientific theories to justify such beliefs.

• In light of this, there is no logical reason to discriminate against certain groups of people. Rather, just by virtue of being human, we should all be afforded the same protection of our natural rights because every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

An assessment of “fairness” ultimately depends on whether one strives for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.

It is practically undeniable that a vast amount of inequality still exists in the world, ranging from racial and gender inequality to political and economic inequality. However, our approach to making society “better and more fair” is dependent on the type of equality that one chooses to strive for. Let us now review the two main types:

• Equality of opportunity: This form of equality has been championed by liberal thinkers such as John Rawls and politicians such as Barack Obama. It defines a fair society as one that has removes underprivileged individuals’ obstacles to success, such as wealth, so that everyone has the chance to achieve their goals based on merit alone. This has partially been achieved through initiatives such as equality under the law and free access to education. However, it can also be argued that more work needs to be done to tackle issues such as subconscious bias and class prejudice if we are to truly live in a meritocratic society.

• Equality of outcome: In contrast, supporters of this form of equality argue that the concept of equality of opportunity is flawed because by definition it accepts the possibility that people may fail in life due to their personal decisions. Moreover, they argue that we can never live in a true meritocracy for reasons such as the advantages that those born into wealth have over their poorer peers. Thus, supporters of equal outcomes believe that equality can only be achieved through measures such as diversity quotas and the redistribution of wealth. Despite this, there is some evidence to suggest that such initiatives may have negative consequences such as the inhibition of innovation and workers’ motivation to do better, which can lead to a reduction in GDP and everyone becoming poorer. Moreover, some have argued that it is actually unfair to “take” these opportunities away from people who have worked harder for them.

Not only is torture a barbaric form of interrogation, but it is also ineffective in terms of extracting accurate information from the suspect.

• If we are to take the Kantian view that humans can never be used as a means to an end, then we could argue that torture is never justifiable. This is because regardless of seriousness of the potential crime, they still have inalienable human rights which cannot be disregarded just because they are suspected of the said crime.

• To add to this, if we are to take all suspects as innocent until proven guilty, then torture cannot be justified. The suspect is subjected to inhumane treatment such as waterboarding (which simulates the sensation of drowning), beatings, being stripped naked and forced to desecrate in the same space that they inhabit. Especially for countries that claim to embody liberalist values of universal rights, it is hypocritical to treat suspects in such degrading ways and as if they have already been found guilty.

• Moreover, even from a consequentialist perspective, torture cannot ever be justified. Research has shown that torture is overall ineffective at providing the interrogator with accurate information. One reason for this is that the psychological impact of torture makes the suspect less able to recall memories accurately, thus diminishing the quality of information received, which is not ideal for life-and-death situations such as terrorism. A second reason for this is that the suspect ends up over-speaking as a way to end the torture. Again, this can lead to more inaccurate information being provided. More seriously, it can lead to the suspect confessing to crimes that they did not commit, which negatively impacts the administration of justice.

The business model that casinos use has been criticised for creating and subsequently profiting off of vulnerable people’s addictions. However, it has also been suggested that casinos are a less problematic way to gamble compared to other mediums.

• Gambling can be described as the staking of money in the view of gaining more. Since casinos are venues which facilitate gambling, they remain quite controversial.

• Various groups have called for the banning of casinos because their business model is intentionally designed to turn their customers into addicts and prey on their vulnerability. For example, casinos have incorporated tactics such as loyalty cards which track personal gambling data, ATMs which allow gamblers to withdraw cash from both debit and credit cards, and game machines which are designed to create the perception of a greater chance of payoff. This has led to addicts falling into debt and turning to crime to fund their addictions. More sinisterly, it is estimated that approximately one in five gambling addicts attempt suicide after suffering from the negative consequences of their addiction.

• However, some people have argued that casinos are less of a threat to gamblers’ wellbeing compared to online gambling, which is a rapidly growing sector. Moreover, one could argue that banning casinos would just move gamblers to the black market, which may pose more danger to them in terms of crime and overcoming the stigma to get help.

Whilst corporations have undoubtedly grown in global influence over the last century, states remain as the enablers for the abhorrent behaviours that certain organisations display.

Indeed, multinational corporations have the global influence that most individual states lack to oppress a greater number of people. Despite this, it should be noted that corporations operate within states and are therefore subject to their national laws. As such, no oppression can occur without the complicity of the states themselves. For example:

• Apple has been sued for sourcing the cobalt used for their rechargeable lithium batteries from forced labour mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, places which also lead to the maiming and deaths of several children. However, Apple most likely would not have been able to continue these practices if the state officials cared more about their people and less about fuelling their own corruption.

• Amazon has been heavily criticised for forbidding their US workers from forming unions. Regardless, one could argue that it is the US’ decades-long hostility towards workers’ unions that has bred the conditions for Amazon to act in this way.

• Although companies such as Costco and Walmart play an active role in the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, which threatens the indigenous communities as well as the environment, it is the policies of Brazil’s populist leader, Jair Bolsonaro, which has rapidly increased the rate of deforestation to a 12-year high.

Thus, in terms of the capacity for oppression, states and corporates are relatively equal threats.

The income paradox demonstrates that up to a certain point, an increase in the overall wealth of a nation does not lead to an increase in happiness. However, a reduction in income disparity does.

• Studies have shown that there is generally a positive correlation between wealth and happiness. This is particularly strong in cases where the overall population tends to be living in absolute poverty.

• However, research has suggested that after some time, an increase in wealth does not lead to an increase in satisfaction for the individual. For example, in the past decade, the UK’s GDP had been steadily increasing, in contrast to happiness levels which decreased by 15%.

• This trend can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, people in more developed countries tend to base their happiness on their situation relative to other people, and so the bigger the inequality, the more unhappy they will feel. A second possible reason is that the growth of the economy is only experienced by the rich, and so the poorer portion of the population do not become any more satisfied with their situation. For example, the Scandinavian countries which are well-known for promoting income equality, regularly sit at the top of the World Happiness Report. The US, on the other hand, boasts the highest GDP in the world and yet sits at number 18 on the index in 2021. Notedly, the nation is often acknowledged to have one of the [highest income disparities] (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world.

• In light of this, it can be argued that income equality leads to a happier society overall.

Forgiveness should not be thought of as letting the person who hurt you off the hook. Rather, it is about taking steps to prevent yourself from becoming overwhelmed by feelings of pain and resentment.

As Everett Worthington convincingly points out, forgiveness is not synonymous with justice or reconciliation. As such, forgiveness does not mean that the abuser goes unpunished, nor does it mean that you must continue to associate yourself with the person who caused you pain. Instead, forgiveness should be thought of as an internal act of healing from the pain that continues to negatively impact you today.

According to the Mayo Clinic, forgiveness can lead to an array of physical and mental health benefits such as:

• Less anxiety, stress and hostility
• Lower blood pressure
• Stronger immune system
• Fewer symptoms of depression
• Improved heart health
• Improved self-esteem

All in all, forgiveness should never be seen as a sign of weakness. Rather, it is a necessary act of self-love.

The democratic peace thesis explains that democratic states are more likely to engage in international affairs with each other by means of negotiation and compromise since they share they already share the same values.

If we define war as an active conflict between two parties that claims at least 1000 lives, then between 1816 and 1991, 353 pairs have engaged in such conflict. Of these pairs, none were conducted by two democratic states. Some explanations have been given to suggest that these facts are representative of a mere correlation rather than a causal link, such as the idea that in the 20th century democratic states were too consumed with the threat of the USSR to fight with each other. However, there seems to be more support for the causal link approach for the following reasons:

• Democratic states tend to have a diversity of institutions which provide various checks and balances on power. This makes it much less likely for belligerence to be accepted.

• Democratic states have similar cultural values. These include a respect for human rights, the desire for negotiation and a willingness to compromise. As such, they are more likely to resolve problems between each other in this way, for example through international organisations such as the G7 and NATO. Contrastingly, non-democratic states such as North Korea and Iran are usually more hostile to negotiations. Thus, democratic states will respond accordingly.

This commentary was adapted from the following source:
M. Griffiths, T O’Callaghan and S. T. Roach in “International Relations: The Key Concepts (3rd edn, 2014)”, Routledge, pp.68-70

The calls to ban the practice of short-selling have existed for over 400 years.

Short-selling bans or restrictions are often enacted during times of great market stress in an attempt to prevent stock prices from falling further. These bans usually restrict market participants from selling shares that they do not already own. Such examples of short-selling bans include:

• 1610: Isaac Le Maire was one of the founders of the Dutch East India Company. As a response to being removed from the board of directors, in 1609 he formed a secret group to short shares in the company. When shareholders discovered their plan a year later, the first-ever regulation against short-selling was put in place, effected in the Amsterdam stock exchange;

• 2008-2009: When the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, regulators such as the US’ Securities and Exchange Commission and the UK’s Financial Services Authority placed several restrictions on short-selling. They believed this would help to steady the market after the significant financial crash;

• 2020: In the early months of 2020, stock prices were tumbling due to the fear and uncertainty surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, regulators across Europe implemented temporary bans on short-selling to counter this market volatility.

Exporting rubbish overseas encourages richer nations to continue to dominate the land of poorer nations, at the expense of the inhabitants’ welfare. This is consistent with colonial practices.

Colonialism concerns access to land and the subsequent dispossession of that land. In light of this, it could be argued that the practice of developed countries exporting their rubbish to poorer, developing nations displays an attitude of "assumed entitlement" to use such land as a ‘sink’. This is very much in line with neo-colonialism. For example:

• In September 2020 alone, the UK shipped 7133 metric tonnes of waste to non-OECD countries such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia and Turkey;

• Regulations which place fetters on the exportation of waste still reflect the idea that some pollution is acceptable, and that richer nations have a right to pollute this land;

• In typical colonial behaviour, the interests of the inhabitants of the host nation to the waste are severely neglected. To illustrate this point, 111 schools in a single Malaysian state had to be temporarily closed in 2019 after 4000 people developed serious illnesses which were later linked to the dumping of toxic waste into the Sungai Kim Kim River.

ESOPs are a good way to improve employee motivation. However, they also have the effect of diluting shares.

An Employment Stock Ownership Plan (otherwise known as ESOP) gives workers ownership interests in the company at no upfront cost to the employee. The employee’s shares are held in a trust unit for safety and growth until the employee leaves the company or retires. At this point, the shares are returned to the company and distributed to other employees.

Some benefits of ESOPs include:

• Motivates employees to ensure that the company performs well since they are owners as well as workers;

• Tax benefits for employees;

• Research has shown that companies adopting ESOPs perform better than those that don’t.

Some drawbacks include:

• Newer employees may not be able to accumulate as much in savings as older employees;

• With every new share that is allocated, the percentage of ownership that each share holds is reduced. Thus, ESOPs create a dilutive effect on voting power.

Limiting procreation will likely lead to reduced carbon emission rates. However, relative to other policies and technologies, procreation does not have nearly as much of a significant impact on the environment to be described as detrimental to the planet.

Of course, having less children will likely lead to a lower net increase in global population which will be beneficial for keeping carbon emission rates down. However, there are a few reasons why policies which limit procreation may not be significantly effective overall:

• According to a 2017 study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, anti-natalist policies would lead to a population size in 2021 that would be similar to today’s levels, which would still mean that the environment is at threat. This led them to concluded that policies and technological developments that aimed to limit resource consumption would have a more significant and immediate impact that limits to procreation.

• Betsy Hartmann, professor emerita of development studies at Hampshire College, Massachusetts, pointed out that there were several countries in the world such as those in sub-Saharan Africa which have some of the globe’s highest birth rates but have the lowest carbon emissions. This led her to conclude that we need to shift the focus away from reproduction and towards more sustainable policies.

Whilst it is important to encourage the consumer to engage in more sustainable travel practices, the most attention should be placed on the corporates.

In the UK, approximately 70% of flights are made by the wealthiest 15% of the population. This trend is echoed across the world. For example, 22% of the Canadian population take up 73% of flights, and just 1% of Indian households take up 45% of flights. Consequently, imposing a frequent flyer tax will most likely have the effect of encouraging people to travel less, thus reducing their carbon footprint and protecting the environment.
However, there are also some potential problems associated with such a scheme, namely:

• Several people across the world have multiple passports, which may enable them to get around certain rules;

• Data processing and privacy concerns, as either the government, the aviation service or other third-party organisations may be given access to your flight history;

• Concerns regarding the complexity of administration of the tax.

More significantly, the frequent flyer tax pulls the focus away from the aviation industry itself which actively encourages its customers to fly more often through its air miles scheme. Therefore, whilst it is necessary to find ways to encourage the consumer to travel less, actions taken by the corporates themselves also need to be reviewed.

The “quiet-preferred” option may achieve comfort for some, but may also result in negative societal impacts.

Since 2019, the Uber app has allowed passengers to select a “quiet-preferred” option which signals to the driver that they would not like to engage in any small-talk. Currently, this option is only available for users of the luxury Uber Black service, which comes at an extra cost.

Some arguments in favour of the service include:

• Avoiding talkative drivers: Passengers have the ability to rate the driver’s conversational skills. This has led some drivers to make deliberate small-talk at the expense of the passenger’s comfort. However, the “quiet preferred” option removes this problem (for those that can afford it).

• Good for anxiety sufferers: Some people suffer from social anxiety, and thus dread the prospect of small-talk. This new option makes such people to feel more comfortable.

• Feeling safe: Some people, especially women, do not feel safe when in taxis, and even more so when driver’s speak to them. Consequently, this service will help women to feel more at ease during their journey.

Conversely, this service has received criticism:

• Classism: It has been argued that this new service gives wealthy people an opportunity to “buy their way out” of interacting with their poorer Uber drivers, which perpetuates classism and elitism in modern society.

• Setting a precedent: Lifestyle coach Felicity Morse believes that this option could have an impact on the way that we treat other social interactions if you do not have the capacity to communicate to someone verbally that you would prefer quiet.

Even if taxation is theft, it is still justified.

The basis of this debate lies in the assumption that all theft is wrong and therefore should not be practised. We can break this down into a simple deductive argument:

• Premise 1: All theft is wrong;
• Premise 2: Taxation is theft;
• Conclusion: Taxation is wrong.

Since the users above have mainly challenged Premise 2 to disprove the conclusion, I will use an argument adapted from Professor Michael Huemer to suggest that even Premise 1 may be flawed:

• Some people believe that certain thefts are morally justifiable e.g. a starving homeless person stealing a loaf of bread from a shop.

• Consequently, what determines the “wrongness” of a theft is how morally justifiable it is.

• When applied to the issue of taxation, we can ask the question: would it be acceptable for the state to steal money to achieve X aim? If the answer is “no”, then tax should not be collected since taxation is theft.

Considering this, we could argue that taxation as a form of theft can be justified in states where taxes are collected for the public good. Therefore, the conclusion that taxation is wrong can be disproved.

• Well, if you are still unconvinced by the moral challenge to Premise 1, then you move on to challenge Premise 2, which concerns whether tax fits the definition of theft. In my opinion, the concept of theft does not and cannot exist independently of the law, since theft is about depriving someone of their legal right to enjoy the value of the property. Thus, so long as the state has a legal right to your pre-tax income, then taxation cannot be theft.

• Then, the final issue left to consider is whether you have a moral right to your pre-tax income, which is outside the definition of theft. Again, I would disagree. There appears to be a general consensus that paying taxes to fund public goods is acceptable. However, if individuals are given the choice to opt-out of certain taxes or pick-and-choose where their taxes go, this has the potential to lead to an inefficient and uneven allocation of funding to certain sectors which ultimately damages the very public goods that we are trying to protect.

• Moreover, we already have some influence over how our taxes are used through exercising our democratic right to vote. Once this has happened, it is probably more appropriate for government officials and expert policy advisers, people who have access to the relevant information, to decide exactly how the taxes are spent, rather than leaving it to the hands of the general public. Admittedly though, there can and should be more openness surrounding how are taxes are allocated.

You certainly make interesting points, which I’ll deal with individually:

• Firstly, I think you may have misunderstood my point regarding theft and the law. I was not saying that illegality = immorality. I was dealing with the issue of whether taxation fits the definition of theft. From a legal perspective, tax does not fit this definition.

• Any discussion beyond this point consequently uses the concepts of “theft” and “stealing” in a more metaphorical way, i.e. being deprived of any moral right to your pre-tax income. This is where the foundational issue of “wrongness” lies, which I dealt with in the second part of my response.

• You have questioned what right the state has over your pre-tax income. I think that we should be looking at the issue from the perspective of the citizens, rather than the state. To avoid repetition, I point to the arguments made by previous users.

• Indeed, the government may not always use taxes in a way that some individuals may believe is most efficient. However, to require every individual citizen, regardless of political engagement or knowledge of economic affairs, to decide complex questions of national budget seems quite risky to me. From this point, we would end up debating the merits of representative democracy compared to direct democracy, which is another issue entirely.

Deep-seated tribalism is taking lives. Fast. Nigeria needs to split before the world witnesses another genocide.

As beautiful and as vibrant as the people are, the problems plaguing Nigeria are too great to be ignored. The solutions to corruption, state-sanctioned ethnic violence, religious tensions, and a severe lack of democratic accountability lie far beyond the need for better economic policies or a more robust criminal justice system. Instead, there needs to be a fundamental re-evaluation of the very nature of the entity that we call “Nigeria” which presently resembles a mere corporate entity rather than a functioning nation state. This is because like almost every other African country whose borders were drawn up thousands of miles away in a European boardroom, Nigeria is far from an organic creation. Thus, divisions based along tribal and religious lines run rife among every sector of society and make it significantly more difficult to govern effectively.

One might argue that the issues relating to the diversity of cultural values can be solved through the implementation of a more genuine federal structure with a stronger focus on regional government and self-determination. However, so long as the central government continues to perpetuate ethnic and religious violence against its own people, then a unified Nigeria will only lead to more lives being lost. For example:

• Ex-Boko Haram terrorists are reintegrated into society without punishment, whilst peaceful protesters are shot in the dead of night and their bodies hidden;

• Violent clashes between armed nomadic herdsmen and local farmers are left unaccounted for by the government, whilst those asking for a democratic independence referendum are threatened to be treated in a “language they understand”, a statement which alluded to the 1967 Nigerian Civil War which involved a blockade that caused millions of Igbo people to die of starvation;

• Government officials openly dialogue with dangerous bandits, whilst critics of the government are illegally kidnapped from foreign countries and tortured.

How many more lives need to be lost for the sake of maintaining the territorial integrity of Nigeria, an identity which was imposed onto the people by the British and continues to be enforced by the political elites who actively benefit from the insecurity? At the very least, it is clear is that Nigerians need to be given the opportunity to provide their verdict on the Nigeria Question after 100 years of being deprived of that choice.

A really nuanced point!

I echo your sentiments about delving deeper into Nigerian history. I think it is important for people to understand the past before they can make sense of the present. A National Conference of some sort is definitely needed, as the citizens have clearly been left out of the discussion for too long.

In a liberal democracy, an individual has the right to vote in a way that aligns with their personal religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Regardless, it is the role of the elected officials to reach a consensus among these views, rather than disregard one or the other entirely.

• Freedom of religious expression is an important part of democratic society. If a person’s politics is influenced by their religious beliefs, then they have a right to express this in their individual vote. Anything less than this is an infringement of a fundamental right.

• However, the role of the elected representatives should be to create laws and policies that best reflect the interests of the whole nation. They must look for a consensus if they want to govern effectively.

• I am not advocating for a theocracy, a.k.a. the merging of religious institutions and the state. I am merely saying that political beliefs are influenced in various ways, and one idea should not be excluded from the discussion purely because it partially stemmed from religion.

Machiavelli’s work was a radical attempt at divorcing politics from ethics.

In the 16th century, the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli wrote a treatise known as “The Prince” as a royal’s practical guide to governance. Unlike political theorists before him, Machiavelli based his advice on an observance of how he viewed the world to be, rather than an idealist perspective of how the world should be. Consequently, his work influenced the development of the realist school of thought in international relations which views power politics as the ultimate driving force in foreign affairs, as opposed to the general pursuit of liberalist ideals. In context, the quote goes as follows:

• “But since it is difficult for a ruler to be both feared and loved, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two must be lacking... For men are less concerned with hurting someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared, because love is held by a link of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken every time their own interests are at stake; but fear is held by a dread of punishment which will never leave you.”

Modern populism rarely operates without disregarding fundamental institutions which are required for representative democracy to function properly.

Modern populism generally hinders to advancement of democratic ideals:

• Firstly, populist movements tend to have charismatic and persuasive leaders which claim that they alone are the answer to the citizens’ problems. For example, the late left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez once claimed “I am not an individual – I am the people”. As a result, they quickly churn out wild and unrealistic policies, such as building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, which easily appeal to people’s prejudices and prevent opportunities for genuine and informed debate.

• Secondly, since populist leaders see themselves as the solution to the country’s problems, they brand their opposition as enemies and traitors. In doing so, they attack key democratic values such as the rule of law, constitutionalism and the need to achieve consensus, seeing them all as instruments of the establishment. Consequently, modern populists tend to exhibit more authoritarian characteristics, which is ultimately detrimental to democracy.

Although it is evident that the US has been experiencing increasing polarization, there are still structures and values in place which are enough to suggest that the US is a functional-enough country.

No country can exist without its fair share of problems, and the US is certainly no different. Regardless, there are two key reasons why the US model enables the country to remain as one:

• The federal system: The federal system respects the cultural differences between the states. It allows each local administration to cater to the unique needs of their people without feeling dominated by a distant central government.

• ”American” values: Despite the divergence in culture across the 50 states, there is still a unifying sense of what being “American” means. This ranges from popular culture, i.e. hot dogs, baseball and Hollywood, to political values such as freedom and democracy. This greatly contrasts former countries that split in the past such as Yugoslavia and Sudan which, for various reasons, did not have a unified sense of national identity to commit to remaining as one. Thus, the fact that the “American” culture is generally adopted across all the states is evidence that the citizens continue to respect the legitimacy of the state.

So sure, the US is slightly dysfunctional, but not dysfunctional enough to require a break-up.

Some people believe that it is possible to partake in consumerism that is both ethical and sustainable. For others, ethical consumerism is an oxymoronic concept.

The origin of the phrase “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” stems from a meme-led backlash on Twitter and Tumblr against a 2014 Elle UK fashion campaign. The company created t-shirts with the slogan “this is what a feminist looks like” and gathered celebrities such as Emma Watson and Alexa Chung to model them. However, it was soon discovered that these t-shirts were produced by severely underpaid female factory workers in Mauritius who operated in abhorrent conditions.

The general arguments which both support and deny the possibility of ethical consumption are as follows:

• Supporting ethical consumption: Ethical consumption concerns thinking about the origin of the product and the context in which it was made. Considering this, it is possible for consumers who have the money to make decisions to buy from more sustainable and ethical brands as this may influence the activities of corporates over time. Moreover, even those who do not have the money to buy more ethical brands should be discouraged from engaging in practices such as overconsumption.

• Denying ethical consumption: Some people, particularly those on the left side of the political spectrum, would argue that exploitation exists at every level within the capitalist system, albeit to different degrees. Therefore, it is impossible to practice ethical consumption in a purist sense. Moreover, some would argue that ethical consumption unfairly puts the moral responsibility for ensuring sustainability on consumers, even though 71% of global emissions are produced by just 100 companies.

Standardised testing is important for measuring learning, promoting equality before the law and aiding the job market. However, it is reasonable to assess the frequency of such tests to reduce pressure on students and ensure genuine learning.

Standardised testing has notable benefits, namely:

• Metric for improvement: Standardised testing can provide a snapshot in time of what the student knows. Thus, it provides the student with the opportunity to discover where they have gaps in their knowledge;

• Promoting egalitarianism: Especially when it comes to national exams, standardised testing involves everyone in the cohort sitting the exact same paper. This means that the grades received from students at one school will have the same value as the grades of a student from another school. Although such testing admittedly cannot tackle the inequality created by those who can afford private tutoring, it does decrease the opportunity for someone to be discriminated against solely based on the school that they went to or the area that they grew up in;

• Aiding the job market: In an age where competition for university places and jobs is so high, it is a necessary requirement that those who select people for these positions have the metrics to discriminate candidates from one another.

We can certainly acknowledge that standardised testing puts a large amount of pressure on students, regardless of age or background, and can lead educators to "teach to the test" rather than ensure genuine learning. Although I believe that these are strong cases for reducing the frequency of standardised testing, especially in England where students take their first national exam at age 7, there are enough benefits to standardised testing to continue using this method in the education system.

The US is not "falling" in an absolute sense, but rather is in relative decline politically, economically and militarily.

In my opinion, the US is not going to “fall” in the same sense that the Roman Empire or the USSR fell, marred by severe internal conflict, a dwindling economy, and an unsalvageable government system. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the US is in relative decline as it slowly loses its global hegemony:

• Politically: The US has historically been considered as the leader and promoter of Western liberalism. However, there have been some cracks in the world’s perception of the US’ political system due to issues such as police brutality and the storming of the US Captiol. Moreover, due to Trump’s “America First” policy, the US played a lesser role on the world stage, which facilitated the rise of authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia;

• Economically: Although the US continues to have the largest GDP per capita, economists predict that China will take over this position within the next decade;

• Militarily: The US undoubtedly has the largest and strongest military force in the world. However, their various campaigns have led to fierce anti-American sentiments, particularly in the Middle East;

Capitalism prides and partially achieves the economic development of the individual, regardless of sex. However, when we look at those who are exploited by the system, women are the disproportionate victims.

• Feminism, and liberal feminism in particular, is about recognising women as individuals and advocating for them to be given equal opportunities to men. In light of this, capitalism could be said to aid these efforts because of its focus on individualism, social innovation and the process of achieving material wealth. For example, women have been able to own their own businesses, take up high positions of authority in corporate spaces and become much wealthier than their counterparts in less developed capitalist societies, thus giving them the opportunity to escape traditional gender roles. Moreover, it has been suggested that capitalism has helped to partially erode the Indian caste system.

• On the other hand, capitalism has traits that make it somewhat incompatible with feminism. For example, a key tenet of feminism is equality, whereas capitalism cannot exist without the exploitation of someone along the supply chain. Oftentimes, such as in the fashion retail sector, the lowest-paid work tends to go to women. Furthermore, the free market does not usually provide for things such as maternity leave and childcare, which again has a negative effect on the extent to which women can actually reap the benefits of living in a capitalist system.

Whilst nationalism generally leads to fear and division, history has shown that sometimes it can be used as an instrument for achieving freedom.

It is certainly important to acknowledge that nationalism has led to the rise of brutal authoritarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy due to excessive patriotism and distaste for the ‘other’ that stems from this ideology. It has also led to the implementation of hostile governments such as Trump and Putin’s respective administrations. However, it should also be noted that nationalism has actually helped some countries to escape oppressive regimes in the past. For example:

• In the late 1980 into the early 1990s, the wave of nationalist movements in Eastern Europe contributed to the fall of the USSR.

• In the 1960s, nationalist leaders in Africa successfully advocated for independence from the European empires that their nations were a part of.

Considering this, nationalism can be used as an instrument to move closer to the goal of self-determination. However, beyond this aim the ideology tends to involve an uncritical subservience to the state at the expense of the welfare of minority groups and, sometimes, the stability of the world order.

This is not the Oppression Olympics. To tackle the issue head on, we need to focus on the quality of harm done to men and women rather than the quantity of harm caused in comparison to each other.

This statement makes the mistake of comparing the quantity of harm that toxic masculinity does to men relative to women, a feat which is impossible to do. In my view, this detracts from the key issue, which should be assessing the type of harm caused to men and women so we can address the problem with more clarity. For example:

• In the case of women, toxic masculinity affects them via the operation of the patriarchy. On a micro level, women may be socialised to assume home-keeping and child-rearing roles, and may be subjected to domestic abuse. On a macro level, toxic masculinity may affect the state’s response to sexual harassment in public places and female access to certain educational fields such as STEM;

• In the case of men, toxic masculinity mainly causes men to suppress their emotions, which has a negative impact on their mental health and can lead to suicide. Moreover, toxic masculinity can cause males to be bullied or shamed for exhibiting a weak form of stereotypically masculine traits, for example being ungifted at sports.

Yes, it is necessary to acknowledge that men and women both suffer from the impact of toxic masculinity. However, focusing on the type of harm caused rather than comparing the amount of harm caused provides the necessary nuance to the conversation that will allow for more targeted solutions.

Religion mainly involves rules and traditions, whereas spirituality deals with one’s personal journey to self-realisation.

Although religion and spirituality are both concerned with trying to find the meaning of life, there are several differences between them:

• Organisation: Religion is mainly concerned with following a set belief system which is reinforced using traditions, holy scripture and institutions. Spirituality, on the other hand, is much more loose, instead being concerned with an individual’s unique journey to becoming one with a Higher Power or the Universe;

• Inclusivity: Religions tend to assert that they have a monopoly on the Truth, therefore other belief systems are wrong. Those who practise spirituality, however, believe that there are multiple paths to the Truth since the pure spirit is a unifying force;

• Obedience: Some religions preach that those who do not follow the doctrines will face divine judgment, which could be seen as an added fear factor for obedience. However, spirituality is less concerned with punishment. Instead, it focuses on the journey to self-realisation, whichever form that may take.

In the UK, mandatory ID cards and indefinite detention have been rightly rejected. Control orders, however, remain on thin ice.

Whilst the UK legislatures have attempted to curve civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism in a way that would be deemed as excessive, there have been some successful challenges to these actions. To name a few:

• In 2005, Part 4 of the Counter-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was repealed after the Law Lords deemed it to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This provision had allowed the indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism offences.

• In 2006, the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed plans to introduce national identity cards which were linked to a government database with the aim of combating terrorism. Although the scheme began its rollout in 2009, plans to introduce this to the rest of UK citizens were scrapped in 2011 on the grounds of privacy concerns.

• Parliament’s implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 created control orders continues, under certain conditions, to limit the civil liberties of those suspected of terrorism by restricting their movement and interpersonal communication among other things. The courts have subsequently interpreted the Act in a way that makes it compatible with the ECHR, although individual control orders that breach human rights are duly scrutinised.

So long as those that partake in the capitalist system are unwilling to commit to real change, even a moderate form of capitalism seems incompatible with environmentalism.

The basis of capitalism is the need to increase private profits and beat out competition. As a result, a more pure and unregulated form of capitalism has led to severe damage to the environment. For example:

• The Guardian revealed that just 20 firms were responsible for one third of the world’s carbon emissions;

• The US, a symbol of free market capitalism, make up just 4% of the world’s population yet account for 17% of the total plastic waste.

It has already been acknowledged above that state can act to make capitalism more sustainable. However, the fact that most governments who practise capitalism are unwilling to commit to reforms that will actually make a difference to the environment means that the short term and self-interested nature inherent in this economic system causes it to continually conflict with long term goals of environmentalism.

With training and education, AI is likely to lead to a displacement, rather than a net loss, of jobs.

The increase in automation within the employment sector has always led to panic among those who fear that more people will lose their jobs, for example:

• In 1811, the Luddites attacked and burned factories because they feared that unskilled machine operators would take away their livelihoods as textile workers;

• In the 1980s, there was a rise in “computerphobia” as many feared that the invention of personal computers would leave them jobless.

However, history has shown that jobs usually end up being created elsewhere, such as in engineering, which usually only requires more education and training. Also, professional service firms are predicted to see an overall increase in jobs due to AI. For example, PwC predicts the following benefits in the legal sector:

• Automated systems which improve access to justice by lowering the price barriers would mean that more people will seek legal services.

• The more process tasks are automated, such as reading contracts, the more work can be taken on, thus increasing the demand for lawyers.

Hence, there is no need to worry about a shortage of jobs in the future. Instead, the world should merely expect to see a shift in the nature of jobs that we assume.

With the apparent decline of liberal democracy and the rise of Big Tech, a more widespread implementation of this dystopian concept does not seem entirely unforeseeable.

• Across the world, our data is already being harvested by Big Tech companies such as Google and Facebook. Moreover, medical apps such as NHS England already store important personal information which could potentially be shared with third parties.

• Over the past decade we have seen a slight decline in liberal democracy in some states across Latin America, and Europe. Some states, such as North Korea, shun the concept entirely.

• In light of this, one could argue that it is plausible that more governments in the future could use technology to monitor their citizens more closely.

The French-promoting Francophonie, the CFA franc and France's steady military presence is textbook neo-colonialism.

French presence in Africa goes as far back as the 17th century. Although the former African colonies gained formal independence from France during the 1960s, there is still evidence that France continues to dominate these countries politically, economically, and militarily:

• Politically: The Francophonie is an international organisation which represents all French-speaking nations. Whilst it aims to promote the political, economic, and cultural advancement of the former colonies, it has been criticised for its overpromotion of the French language and its downplaying of colonial history.

• Economically: In 1945, Francophone Africa was made to sign an agreement to use the CFA franc as their currency. The supposed benefits of this agreement are that the exchange rate between the euro and the CFA franc remain the same, and that unlimited convertibility is guaranteed. However, the states are also required to deposit 50% of their foreign exchange reserves into the Bank of France.

• Militarily: France has a very prominent military presence in Africa. However, the country has been accused of only acting when certain forces threaten their influence in the country. For example, one could contrast [France’s work to fight militants in North Africa](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/french-military-presence-in-africas-sahel-a-fiasco/1965919 where numerous French firms are based to its failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

TL;DR – Despite some cracks appearing in the system, there is more evidence to suggest that Western liberalism is here to stay.

In 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, many people saw this as a victory for Western liberalism, a concept which encompasses a respect for democracy, the free market, and individual rights. Some commentators, such as Francis Fukuyama, dubbed this turn of events as the “end of history”, and argued that liberal democracy was the final form of human government. However in 2019, the Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked that Western liberalism was “obsolete”. Indeed, some recent events could support this statement:

• The rise of China, a country which possesses an authoritarian political system and a more than questionable human rights records;

• The United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union in 2016;

• The United States’ decision to elect the populist figure Donald Trump as its 45th President in 2016;

• The rise of nationalist political figures in Europe such as Marine Le Pen.

Although these events suggest that Western liberalism is weaker than it once was, this does necessarily mean that Western liberalism has lost to other systems of government. For example, the citizens’ rejection of Le Pen in 2017 and Trump in 2020 demonstrates that people are still dedicated to preserving a healthy democracy. Moreover, the world’s constant outrage at human rights abuses such as police brutality, concentration camps, and sexual violence is strong evidence that Western liberalism, at least for the meantime, is here to stay.

TL;DR – Since “survivor” conveys a little more than “victim” in regard to the nature of rape, I believe it remains a useful term in this area of discourse.

• At the end of the day, it is down to the individual who has experienced a rape attack to decide how they would prefer to be called.

• However, I believe that the term “survivor” should still be used because it more explicitly acknowledges that rape is a violent act. This is because the term is commonly used to describe instances where a person has emerged from a dangerous situation, for example a “hurricane survivor” or a “shooting survivor”. In contrast, the term “victim” is not used in the same way. To illustrate this point, a person can be described as a “victim” of prank calling, which is a non-dangerous act. In light of this, it would sound rather strange to refer to such a person as a prank calling “survivor”.

To do justice to the individual in question, the term used to describe the attack needs to encapsulate its abhorrent nature. In my view, "survivor" does this well.

TL;DR – Broadly speaking, history tends to repeat itself. To put it simply, similar conditions equal similar outcomes.

Repeats...rhymes...it's the same difference...

Of course, no two events can ever occur in exactly the same way. However, I do not think that the statement is supposed to be taken literally. From a broader perspective, it can be argued that history is generally cyclical, in that similar events will have similar outcomes. In my view, this is mainly down to the unchanging nature of human beings who, when operating within certain structures and environments, will react in relatively similar ways. For example:

• When opportunistic and self-serving individuals like Stalin and Mussolini are placed in high positions of power, the general consequence is that they conduct reigns of tyranny and authoritarianism.

• When the state does not provide their people with the basic amenities for life such as food, water, and security, then it becomes highly likely that there will be an attempt at revolution. Such examples include the 1789 French Revolution, the 1791 Haitian Revolution, and the 1917 Russian Revolution.

• Nationalism and populism generally breed violence due to a disdain for the “other”. Examples of this include concentration camps used in North Korea and Nazi Germany, and the more recent storming of the US Capitol by Trump supporters.

Ultimately, the fact that the study of history exists as a discipline indicates that it is capable of repeating itself as we can extrapolate the knowledge gained from the past to examine present day events.

So yes, history does repeat it. And yes, it also rhymes.

TL;DR – Whilst the presence of nuclear weapons reduces the possibility of physical warfare, the mere existence of such destructive weapons arguably makes the world a much more dangerous place than before.

The answer to this question ultimately depends on one's definition of “safer”:

• From one perspective, the presence of nuclear weapons reduces the chance of a “hot war” because of the concept known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). States are aware of the devastating consequences of nuclear attacks, as witnessed in the 1945 bombings of Fukushima and Nagasaki. Consequently, the threat of reciprocation means that states are more willing to negotiate peacefully if tensions rise, as seen in the events of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

• However, the very fact that nuclear weapons are so destructive suggests they do not make the world a safer place. Surely, the fact that states now possess weapons that can annihilate whole cities in an instant implies that the world has become more dangerous, rather than safe. The threat of another nuclear attack occurring again is more than enough to keep people on the edge…

TL;DR – A workable concept, although practical considerations should also be taken into account.

It is true that borders are somewhat arbitrary lines which shift and change over centuries. It can also be acknowledged that there are a lot of problems with associated with borders, namely violence, oppression, xenophobia and detention centres. Whilst I believe that softening borders will help to reduce these problems, I also think that we should not be so hasty as to abolish them so soon for the following reasons:

• In order for governance to be effective, governments need to have an idea of population size so they can plan budgets and distribute resources. If borders are abolished too quickly, then there may be a rapid influx of citizens from developing countries migrating to more developed countries. With such a rapid change, the host nations may struggle to meet the needs of the population.

• The abolition of borders may lead to the end of the modern territorial state as distinctions based on nationality and common heritage become less relevant for governance. If national governments are no longer needed, could this lead to the creation of a world government? If so, does this not also have tyrannical and authoritarian undertones?

• Arguably, border control was and still is important for somewhat controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. Having an open border policy may make it much more difficult to contain transferable diseases.

TL;DR – The evidence suggests that the killer had a high level of anatomical knowledge, something which, at the time, women were highly unlikely to possess.

Whilst a Jill the Ripper would explain why the serial killer was able to evade the police at the time, here is why I think that the theory is unlikely to be true:

• The manner in which the incisions were made suggests a level of expert anatomical knowledge. In Annie Chapman’s post mortem, the coroner reported that the shape of the cuts were consistent with those made by a sharp medical instrument. Moreover, in Catherine Eddowes’ post mortem, the coroner remarked “I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the organ in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them.”

• Women had only been legally permitted to enter medical school in England in 1876, which is only 12 years prior to the Ripper murders. This means that there were far less women who were experts in the medical field than men.

• In light of these facts, it is much more unlikely, although not entirely impossible, that the murderer was female.

Thus, for now, I think Jack the Ripper is a more viable conclusion to come to.

TL;DR – The full quote is actually “for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” from the Bible passage 1 Timothy 6:10. One should place a heavy emphasis on the word “love”.

Money is essentially a medium of exchange. It is used as a means to an end, rather than being perceived as an end in itself. Consequently, it can be used for either good or evil, a choice which is ultimately dependent on the values of the moral agent. For example:

• Kobe Bryant used his wealth to develop a sports academy for young athletes in his community. Here, money was used to achieve a positive goal.

• Conversely, the European colonists enslaved generations of Africans in order to cut labour costs and maximise their profits to spend on goods from the New World. In this instance, the colonists’ desire to make more money in order to achieve their personal goals came at the expense of the slaves’ welfare.

Thus, money is a morally neutral asset. The true root of all evil lies within the selfish hearts of mankind, or rather those who choose to express their selfish desires through the use of their wealth.

TL;DR – Great in theory. Not so great in practice.

Drawing on the ideas of Hugo Grotius and the general concept of natural rights, humanitarian intervention seeks to justify foreign intervention in a state that is perceived to be conducting human rights abuses against its citizens, or is unable or unwilling to prevent such abuses. This is also expressed by the Responsibility to Protect principle which was unanimously endorsed by the UN member states at the 2005 World Summit. Whilst its supporters argue that it is good for promoting liberal values globally, it can be criticised for not working in the way that it should:

• Military intervention to topple a tyrannical state has often led to more widespread instability, insurgency and anarchy because there is rarely a plan for post-invasion. Such examples include the aftermath of NATO’s interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

• Humanitarian intervention can be perceived as a guise for Western imperialism. For example, NATO’s decision to go forward with the Iraq War in 2003 without the consent of the UN was criticised by Middle Eastern nations who viewed this as an attempt to advance the Western agenda in the region. Conversely, where states are of little interest politically and economically to the West, there is less urgency to act when human rights abuses do occur, a key example being the UN’s passivity during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Ultimately, humanitarian intervention has the potential to be very effective. However, so long as states continue to use this principle to protect their own interests and fail to adequately plan for the post-invasion period, then the extent to which the principle can be adequately applied is hindered.

TL;DR – Corporations cannot physically vote and so should not be able to influence political campaigns. However, should they be permitted to donate money, their actions must be openly and independently regulated.

• It is hardly controversial to assert that donations can influence political campaigns, thus it is reasonable to suggest that only the electorate – i.e. individuals who are capable of placing a ballot in the box – should be able to make donations. Conversely, corporate personhood is a legal fiction; they are not real individuals who can vote. Hence, they should not have the power to influence the outcome of elections in this way.

• Moreover, corporations are immensely wealthier than the vast majority of private citizens. In order to prevent corporations from dominating the political landscape, one could argue that it is better to prevent them from donating money altogether.

• However, we can also acknowledge that, like private citizens, corporations are stakeholders in the state’s economic and political affairs. Considering this, one could suggest that if corporations donate money, the amount should be limited and the transaction should be recorded on a register. This practice will help to promote pluralism, fairness, and transparency.

A one-party state is characterised as a state where only a single political party is authorised to represent the interests of the nation. Whilst the ideological monopoly present in a one-party state takes away the need to spend long periods of time debating conflicting ideas in order to achieve a consensus, the virtual absence of all meaningful debate in such a nation is arguably more detrimental to its advancement. Legislative chambers become “rubber-stamp” bodies which exist only as a means to implement the executive body’s policies without much thought as to their practical merits. Consequently, in countries such as North Korea and Eritrea, this has led to severe economic and social underdevelopment. Moreover, in the absence of a proactive legislative chamber, a one-party state experiences a larger, more powerful and highly-centralised bureaucracy, for example the USSR’s “nomenklatura”, a phenomenon which arguably hinders efficiency. Hence, although a one-party state’s ability to remove the prospect of potentially time-consuming and contentious debates may be considered an advantage of this arrangement, it is certainly not a significant advantage as it is greatly outweighed by the fact that meaningful debates are prevented altogether, which causes even more delay to progress in a democratic political system.