服务承诺
资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达
51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展
积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈Blaaah
2013-11-13 来源: 类别: 更多范文
COMMUNISM
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need. You have no rights, only the state has rights.
This only applies to the cadres. The Communist rulers get the best of everything and whatever they want.
LIBERAL DEMOC
In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms. There are various legal limitations such as copyright and laws against defamation. There may be limits on anti-democratic speech, on attempts to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. In the United States more than in Europe, during the Cold War, such restrictions applied to Communists. Now they are more commonly applied to organizations perceived as promoting terrorism or the incitement of group hatred. Examples include anti-terrorism legislation, the shutting down of Hezbollah satellite broadcasts, and some laws against hate speech. Critics claim that these limitations may go too far and that there may be no due and fair judicial process.
The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy. Some argue that this is only quantitatively (not qualitatively) different from autocracies that persecute opponents, since only a small number of people are affected and the restrictions are less severe. Others emphasize that democracies are different. At least in theory, opponents of democracy are also allowed due process under the rule of law. In principle, democracies allow criticism and change of the leaders and the political and economic system itself; it is only attempts to do so violently and the promotion of such violence that is prohibited.
However, many governments considered to be democratic have restrictions upon expressions considered anti-democratic, such as Holocaust denial and hate speech. Members of political organizations with connections to prior totalitarianism (typically communist, fascist, and nazi) parties prohibited and current or former members of such organizations may be deprived of the vote and the privilege of holding certain jobs. Discriminatory behavior may be prohibited, such as refusal by owners of public accommodations to serve persons on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. In Canada, a printer who refused to print pro-homosexual materials was fined $5,000, incurred $100,000 in legal fees, and was ordered to pay a further $40,000 of his opponents' legal fees.[1] This prosecution was by a quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal, not a civil or criminal court. These tribunals are not bound by the same rules regarding evidence and procedure as the regular courts.
Other rights considered fundamental in one country may be foreign to other governments. For instance, the constitutions of Canada, India, Israel, Mexico and the United State guarantee freedom from double jeopardy, a right not provided in other legal systems. Similarly, many Americans consider gun rights to be important, while other countries do not recognize them as fundamental rights
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1878[2] – 5 March 1953) was the first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's

