Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Writer’s Username complete this paper: Writergrrl101

File needed for order uploaded to fax/file board.

Reading Assignment:
Course Documents Area: [Note: The text of the Locke reading is found in
this area of the course.]
John Locke: from The Second Treatise on Government [Note: The
first few pages of Locke’s essays are concerned with the “state of
nature.” In this state, there is total freedom and no social or legal
system. Pay attention to what Locke says in this section about
property acquisition and property rights. In the state of nature, all
property (including one’s property in one’s own person and in one’s
rights) is insecure because individuals pursue their own self-interest. It
is not until individuals band together for their own security to create a
“civil” and a “political society” that a system of law comes into being.
Locke believes that the only legitimate system of governance is one
based on “consent of the governed” and “majority rule.”]
Note: This essay is the foundation for this week’s assignment. You
should read it and fully digest the ideas in it before moving on to the
other readings for this week.

KSSR:
Louis Wright: “The British Tradition in America in Retrospect” 183 [Note:
Pay particular attention to what Wright says about our Puritan
Inheritance and about our legal system.]
John Winthrop: “A Model of Christian Charity” 206 [Note: Pay particular
attention to the implications of Winthrop’s ideas for property rights.]
Hector Crevecoeur: “What is an American?” 246 [Note: Pay particular
attention to what Crevecoeur says about freedom, property, and
tolerance.]
Frank S. Meyer: "Western Civilization: The Problem of Political Freedom”
155 [Note: Pay particular attention to what Meyer says about freedom
and individualism. This should give you an idea of what his views
about property are.]


Writing Assignment 6.1:

Scenario: The Roberts family gathered at the family farm for Thanksgiving dinner for the first time without their mother, Lillian. This past summer, they had all helped Lillian move into an assisted living facility in the nearby town. She was still mentally sharp, but had come down with the stomach flu, and so had been unable to attend the Thanksgiving celebration.

After dinner, an argument over inheritance broke out among the Roberts siblings. It began when Edna stated that, since their mother had not yet made a will, it was time for her (Edna) and the other three kids to give her a nudge in this direction and decide among themselves how they thought the farm ought to be divided after their mother’s passing. They could then present this plan to their mother as a proposal that would please everyone and be in everyone’s best interests. She said that she thought their mother would abide by their wishes since she wanted to do the best by everyone. Edna’s view was that since she (Edna) and her husband Bob had worked the farm after their father had died three years before, and since they had lived with Lillian, cooking and cleaning for her and taking her to church and her doctor's appointments, that they should get at least half the property.

"Wait a minute," Mike said, "You’re forgetting that you lived rent free on the farm those three years and that you took a portion of the farm’s income as your salary. I think you’ve been paid very well for your labors.”

Their sister Janet had slipped in the haymow of the barn the year before their father’s death and had fallen backwards almost two stories onto the concrete drive below. She was now paralyzed from the neck down. She said, “I agree with Mike. After all, just because we don’t work the farm now does not mean that we love our mother any less or that we didn’t do plenty of work on the farm as long as we could. Not everyone is cut out to be a farmer. Mike became a policeman and Danny became a software engineer. Why should they be penalized for pursuing their own interests and talents? I think we should propose that Mom divide the farm equally among the four of us.”

Edna started to object, but Mike jumped in and said, “I agree with Janet, with one exception. I think the property should be divided into five parts and that Janet should get two of those parts since she can’t work any more and is living on her small fixed disability income.

At this point, Danny, at twenty-four the youngest sibling, almost shouted in anger, “You’re all forgetting that this property isn’t yours! It’s Mom’s! She and she alone should decide what she wants to do with it. This whole conversation should not have taken place, and I won’t be a party to any further discussion of the division of Mom’s property.” With that, he got up, grabbed his coat, and left. Mike and Janet followed him.
WRITE A 1,000-WORD MINIMUM ESSAY IN WHICH YOU CORRELATE THE VIEWS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE AUTHORS WE READ FOR THIS WEEK TO THE POSITIONS OF THE FOUR SIBLINGS. [Note: Your main focus is on the ideas in the readings, not the views of the siblings. Also note that several of the readings agree with one particular sibling; they readings and siblings do not match one for one.] BE SURE TO GIVE YOUR OPINIONS OF THE IDEA YOU WRITE ABOUT AS YOU GO. WHICH OF THESE AUTHORS’ VIEWS DO YOU FIND MOST COMPELLING ON THE SUBJECT OF PROPERTY ACQUISTION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS? WHY?


There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: Topic; What are intellectual property rights? WHat national and global directives govern their enforcement? What are the implications for business? what can/should be done?

Format; 3pgs 12pt font
Margins; 1.25; 1.5 for abstract
Spacing; single for body, triple before and after 1st level headings; Double before and after 2nd level headings, double between paragraphs
Sources; web or journals...WTO or US.INFO.STATE.Gov good starts

Essay Instructions: Present a critical discussion of the Marxist critique of property rights as a primary barrier to freedom in liberal societies, and the Marxist case for abolishing private property.

Some foot notes required.

The Communist Manifesto is required as a source. Other than that, it is up to the writer.

Needs to be cutom and no funny biz. None of that copy & paste from the net bullshit.

I hope you have some good writers that are english speakers and familiar with Marxism.

Essay Instructions: The questions should be answered in a short essay format form:
Case Study: " Property Rights Security in Russian Deprivatization"
1) What impact will the prospect of deprivatization have on investment by managers of privatized firms?
2) What effect will deprivatization have on foreign investment in Russia?
3) Who gains from deprivatization? Who loses?
4) Assuming more people are hurt by deprivatization than helped, why would a local politician support such a policy?

CASE STUDY
PROPERTY RIGHTS SECURITY IN RUSSIAN DEPRIVATIZATION

Since 1992, approximately 70,000 state-owned enterprises in Russia were privatized. Many of the private buyers were foreign companies and investors, for example from the United States and Western Europe. The idea was to move from a
centrally planned economy to a market system.

Yet in the late 1990s a weak economy caused great concern among Russian voters. Politicians, such as Moscow’s Mayor Yuri M. Luzhkov began promoting “deprivatization” or as the locals put it, deprivatizatsia. Under this policy certain past
privatizations would be declared illegal and the transactions would be reversed. The company then either would be run as a state-owned enterprise or sold to another party. For example, in October 1999, a court stripped Wall Street’s Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and the US-Russia Investment Fund of their majority interest in the Lomonosov Porcelain Factory in St. Petersburg. These companies had purchased the factory in 1998, but the courts ruled that the company’s initial privatization five years earlier was illegal. Sources suggested that the company was likely to be resold to Soviet-era managers who were set to lose their jobs when the new investors entered the picture.

Politicians, such as Luzhkov, vow that not all privatizations will be reversed ??" only the illegal ones. But the current problem is that privatization legislation is nebulous about what could be termed a violation. Anything from a missing piece of paper in the original tender offer to investment requirements not being met might be ruled a violation. And virtually anyone could file a complaint to trigger an inquiry into a past deal.

1- 3 quotations or any citations will be fine.