Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Brennan writes that one of the many reasons that common people cannot be trusted to make decisions for the state is because reasoning is commonly motivated, and, therefore, people decide what policies to support based on their connection to those proposing and supporting the measures, not based on what is most effective.
To help promote the novel, Barry created a browser game titled Jennifer Government: NationStates (later shortened to NationStates). In the game, players make choices which are inspired by the novel and which affect the economy, society, and culture of their countries. [5] NationStates launched alongside the book and remains active as of 2025. [6]
Term Description Examples Autocracy: Autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power (social and political) is concentrated in the hands of one person or polity, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d'état or mass insurrection).
German nationality law defined "German" based on German ancestry, excluding all non-Germans from the people. [29] In recent years, a nation-state's claim to absolute sovereignty within its borders has been criticized. [25] A global political system based on international agreements and supra-national blocs characterized the post-war era.
NationStates (formerly Jennifer Government: NationStates) is a multiplayer government simulation browser game created and developed by Max Barry. Based loosely on Barry's novel Jennifer Government , the game launched on 13 November 2002 with the site originally founded to publicize and promote the novel one week before its release.
Musk says ‘trying to make everything a race issue is divisive and corrosive,’ days after settling a racial discrimination lawsuit at Tesla Sasha Rogelberg March 18, 2024 at 5:32 PM
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The issue is sometimes presented as a paradox. If a majority is not entitled to do so, then it is thereby deprived of its rights; but if a majority is entitled to do so, then it can deprive the minority of its rights. The paradox is supposed to show that no solution can be both democratic and just. But the dilemma seems to be spurious.