Liberal pacifism believes that capitalism and democracy are forces for peace. Additionally, liberal pacifism strives to maintain peaceful conditions. They also believe in free and peaceful trade because then no class gains from forcible expansion and no one is hurt economically. Their people are democratized, individualized, and rationalized. The readings state that “The people’s energies are daily absorbed in production. The disciplines of industry and the market train people in “economic rationalism”; the instability of industrial life necessitates calculation. Capitalism also “individualizes”; “subjective opportunities” replace the “immutable factors” of traditional, hierarchical societies” (Doyle 52). Their state is that of a capitalist democracy. Compared to liberal imperialism they want just material welfare while liberal imperialism wants more than just material welfare. Liberal imperialism expands because of feeling threatened by other states with similar aims and due to citizens needing to satisfy their ambition or to release their political energies through imperial expansion. However, the political view of liberal pacifism does not believe in expansion. Liberal pacifism actually contends with liberal imperialism that “the modern populace actually controls (and thus unbalances) the mixed republic, its diffidence may outweigh elite (“senatorial”) aggressiveness”(Doyle 54). The state of liberal imperialism is a mixed republic characterized by social equality, popular liberty, and political participation. Liberal internationalism believes that there must be a united constitution among liberal states to “connect the characteristics of liberal politics and economies with sustained liberal peace… because the political bonds of liberal rights and interests have proven a remarkably firm foundation for mutual nonaggression. A separate peace exists among liberal states” (Doyle 59). Consequently, the state of liberal internationalism is a republic. Furthermore, liberal internationalism differs from liberal pacifism because it remains in a state of war with nonrepublics while liberal pacifism tries to remain out of conflicts and war. 2) The first principle of political realism is “that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”(Morgenthau 1). This means that we need to develop a “rational theory” and also be able to distinguish what is true objectively and rationally about these laws. Since human nature has not changed since classical philosophies then we can look into human nature and try to identify the reasoning and purpose of some objective laws. In the text it states that “it assumes that the character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts”(Morgenthau 1). Again, this means that through rational theory we can begin to identify what the reasoning and motives of political officials were. Lastly, to properly understand and give meaning to foreign policy, we must put ourselves in the shoes of a political official who will be deciding on a specific issue and determine what they (a rational person) would chose. The second principle of political realism is: “interest defined in terms of power”(Morgenthau 2). If we look back at what a statesman has done then we can be able to identify his interests and guess what they will decide on a political issue. This involves a lot of paying attention to detail, knowing what the statesman in and out, and “intellectual discipline”. To understand foreign policy it is important to understand the “intellectual ability to comprehend the essentials of foreign policy, as well as his political ability to translate what he has comprehended into successful political action”(Morgenthau 3). Furthermore, “political realism maintains not only that theory must focus upon the rational elements of political reality, but also that foreign policy ought to be rational in view of its own moral and practical purposes”(Morgenthau 4). The third principle of political realism is “interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all”(Morgenthau 5). This means that political interest itself is not fixed and can change. It has changed and will continue to change because “these ideas have very often served as switches determining the tracks on which the dynamism of interests kept actions moving”(Morgenthau 5). Additionally, this also applies to power, but the balance of power is what leads to “relative stability and peaceful conflict”(Morgenthau 6). The fourth principle of political realism is that “universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation”(Morgenthau 6). An example would be: “the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival”(Morgenthau 6). This means that even though there is a moral concern, the universal moral principles will have no effect in political actions. This places political action above moral principles. “Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions-to be the supreme virtue in politics”(Morgenthau 6).The fifth principle of political realism is that it “refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe”(Morgenthau 7). This means that we can not say that God is on one side and not the other. We should not mix this with the moral aspirations of a particular nation and the actual moral laws of said nation relating it to beliefs. This way of thinking can lead to the destruction of “nations and civilizations-in the name of moral principle, ideal, or God himself” (Morgenthau 7). Lastly, if we look at all nations, including ours, political interests then “we are able to judge other nations as we judge our own and, having judged them in this fashion, we are then capable of pursuing policies that respect the interests of other nations, while protecting and promoting those of our own” (Morgenthau 7).The sixth principle of political realism is that there is a difference “between political realism and other schools of thought is real, and it is profound” (Morgenthau 7). Telling us that political realists are in fact unique and different from other theories. “Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth” (Morgenthau 7). Furthermore, it states that “political realism takes issue with the “legalistic-moralistic approach” to international politics” (Morgenthau 8). 3) The structure of the Nevada Judiciary is divided into three levels: appellate court (Nevada Supreme Court), courts of general jurisdiction (Nevada district courts), and courts of limited jurisdiction (justice courts and municipal courts). Nevada does not have an intermediate court of appeals between its supreme court and trial courts. The Nevada Judiciaries chief function is to interpret state statutes and state constitutional provisions and impose sanctions on those who violate them. The Nevada Supreme Court is the highest level court and is the court of last resort in the state judicial system. Justices on the court are elected for six-year, staggered terms. Due to the increased workload the justices would sit in two panels of three to hear appeals. One in Carson City and one in Las Vegas. The panels are randomly appointed and membership rotates every twelve months. All seven justices sit as a group to hear only the most important cases, such as those involving ballot questions, direct appeals in death penalty cases, and contested cases involving attorney suspension or disbarment. To decide who the chief justice is among two or more people in their last 2 years of a term they typically toss a coin or take turns with one of them serving as chief justice the first year and the other the second year. The other would in the meantime serve as vice-chief justice. The Nevada Supreme Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction. The Nevada Supreme Court hears appeals coming from the state’s district courts but is restricted to hearing questions of law only and not questions of fact. Additionally, they decide whether/ why they believe the proceeding in the district courts were proper or improper. District court judges are chosen in non partisan elections just for six-year terms just like the supreme court justices. There have been ten judicial districts in Nevada. The judges in each district usually vary on the population of that district. However, district courts are single-judge courts, meaning that cases are heard by a single judge and not by a panel as in the supreme court. In some civil cases and in all “serious” criminal cases, defined as those in which the defendant may receive a penalty of incarceration of more than six months, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. The district courts exercise both appellate and original jurisdiction. In 1990 legislature established family court divisions within the district courts. The lowest tier in Nevada’s judicial system, the courts of limited jurisdictions, consist of the justice and municipal courts. They have original jurisdiction only and hear minor criminal and civil matters, most notably traffic violations. Judges in the justice courts are referred to as justices of the peace and are selected by the voters of the state’s forty-three townships in nonpartisan elections for six-year, staggered terms. Justice courts have three major duties: to hear cases involving minor criminal offenses (misdemeanors), to hear civil cases of $10,000, or less, and to hold preliminary hearings in felony and gross misdemeanor cases to determine if there is probable cause to hold the defendant over for trial in a district court. The chief function of municipal courts is to hear traffic cases and cases involving violations of city ordinances. Those who are elected, such as judges in Sparks and Las Vegas, serve four-year terms of office while those who are appointed, as those in Boulder city, serve at the pleasure of the city council. In 1976 the voters of Nevada approved a constitutional amendment establishing a state Commision on Judicial Discipline. The commission has 7 members: 2 judges or justices appointed by the supreme court, two members of the State Bar of Nevada selected by the bar’s board of governor, and 3 lay-people appointed by the governor. This commission has the authority only to censure, retire, or remove supreme court and district court judges and retire or remove, but not censure, municipal and justice court judges.The Intermediate Court of Appeals is a court that hears appeals of trial court decisions. They make sure that the law has been applied correctly in a trial court. New facts cannot be introduced in the appellate courts and if new facts are available, the case goes back to a trial court. The final appeals court is the Supreme Court of the US. Sagebrush pg 101 and 103 – look at eric’s messages. 4) A democracy is a system of government where all the people of a state or policy are involved in making decisions about its affairs. The government must be by the people and have rule of majority, where the main source of citizen involvement is through voting to elect representatives to a legislative and executive office. In addition, the ultimate power in a democracy is vested by the people. Most modern democracies, such as western democracies and more specifically a liberal democracy, have both a procedural democracy and democratic values. A procedural democracy involves the manner in which political officials are elected and how the government is run based on the set way a democracy does it. Democratic values are the values that all people in a democracy have. There are four key aspects of a democratic system. The first is free and fair elections when replacing governments or government officials. Secondly is the protection of human rights of all citizens. Thirdly is a politically active citizenry with free and legal participation. Fourthly is the value of rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. A country might have a democratic process of elections, such as Russia and Iran, thus their procedure is democratic, but they do not have democratic values such as human rights, minority rights, equality rights, and others. For example, Russia’s elected officials are elected by the same procedures of a democracy, but Russia does not have human rights and minority rights (democratic values). In Iran the politically elite decide on who gets to run for office and they are also elected by the same procedures of a democracy, but then besides that there is barely any other citizen involvement or rights, such as human and minority rights. Democratization theory is the transition between more democratic political regime. So the government changing from less democratic to more democratic. Modernization theory states that as countries become more economically and culturally modern they become more democratic as well. The relationship between these two theories is that if a country is modernized economically, socially, and culturally then they are more likely to be democratic. Democracy is a modern form of government and that is why they are related. Arab spring failed due to modernization theory because these countries were not modernized economically or culturally enough to change. If Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen had been more economically and culturally advanced then they would have been able to successfully been able to democratize.