Communism vs Fascism Essay -- Communism Essays

The definition of communism is â€Å" a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.† The definition of fascism is â€Å"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.† Communism and Fascism are both forms of Totalitarianism, which is when the ruler has complete power over everyone. There is a fine line between the differences of Communism and Fascism, however these next three articles prove that there is a line and there is no gray space. People are either one side or the other, there is no in between, the goals and secular leading may be the same but the inner workings differ by a lot, Krupskaya, M ussolini, and Hitler explain the differences in their following articles.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Krupskaya’s was a communist and her article What a Communist Ought to be Like describes the standards, mind set, back ground, and just an overall idea of what communists are like. She sum’s up her article at the end of the paper which gives the main idea of what the whole article is on â€Å" Thus, in order to be a communist: (1) it is necessary to know what is bad about the capitalist system, where social development is h...

That Was Then This Is Now :: essays research papers

That Was Then This is Now   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This book is about two greasers named Bryon and Mark. Mark whose parents died when he was a young age went to live with Bryon. This book is in first person, and takes place behind the eyes of Bryon. The book first starts out by introducing the other characters in the novel: Charlie, a bartender who allows Mark and Bryon to come in to his bar, but wont let them buy booze. M&M a small longhaired child who always seems to be munching on M&Ms, and he lends Bryon and Mark money all the time. After their rendezvous with M&M the boys visit their mother in the hospital, and while their Bryon meets Cathy who is M&Ms sister who just came back from medical school. After a conversation, Bryon invites Cathy to go on a date with him, and Cathy accepts. Soon Bryon talks Mark into double dating with him, then he proceeds to borrow Charlie’s car. The next night Angela, who is Bryon’s ex sends someone to attack him, and who ends up attacking Mark. Mark is sent to the hospitable, but recovers in a day or two. The story then resumes with Bryon continuing to date Cathy, and Mark seems to become more and more jealous. One night Mark, Bryon, Cathy, and M&M decide to drive up and down the Ribbon to get M&M cheered up because his dad was ridiculing him for his long hair. The Ribbon is a long stretch of road that teens hang out. While driving along M&M gets out and walks away with a group of other long haired children, but because you cant stop on the ribbon on a green light all they could do is watch him go away. For the next few days Cathy and Bryon are searching the Ribbon while Mark mysteriously brings in large sums of money to pay for his mothers hospitable bill. Bryon notices this, but never asked Mark where he is getting the money. The next day Mark says he might know where M&M is. Mark discloses a hippy hangout, and that is where Mark goes, but without Cathy. Bryon finds that M&M had been there, but was not around that day. The next day Bryon an d Cathy go to the hangout and find M&M, and he was really bad.

Essential Aspects of Communication Displayed Through Film Essay

Abstract In interpersonal communication, there are several variables that create a dialogue between two or more people. From the film Hitch, directed by Andy Tennant, the four main variables of interpersonal communication used are perception, nonverbal communication, certain aspects of relational development, and culture. All of these variables play a role in the film to create the relationships and communication that occur in the film. Some of the communication portrayed in the film Hitch is nonverbal between the various characters. Two main relationships develop throughout the film; these relationships are between characters, Hitch and Sara, Albert and Allegra. Culture shapes the way people are and how they choose their relationship partners, which is an essential point displayed in Hitch. The study of how perception plays a role in life is shown in this film by how people view others by their appearance, and nonverbal cues. Relational development is also shown throughout the film to displa y how relationships in the film begin to develop into lifelong bonds. Essential Aspects of Communication Displayed Through Film Introduction Life is a melting pot. It is filled with pieces from here and there, but in the end comes together as a whole collaboration. Our way of making life is through communication. Communication is a collaboration of verbal dialogue, as well as nonverbal cues. These items are essential to our communication, but the way in which they are interpreted depends on how one perceives it, which is dependent upon their culture. The 2005 film Hitch, displays prime examples of communication through relationships nudged by Alex Hitchens. Alex is â€Å"Hitch,† a professional matchmaker as one might say, whose job is to make unlikely interactions happen between two unlikely people. Through this tactic, he is able to bring together people who are right for one another, but who would never had met would it not have been for his intervention. Hitch, directed by Andy Tennant, uses nonverbal communication, perception, culture, and aspects of relational development to explore the way in which people dia logue, and the relationships that grow due to this communication. Perception The film Hitch, is filled with many aspects of interpersonal communication, one of them being perception. Perception is how we see others, interpret their dialogue, actions, etc. In this film, Albert is not noticed by his hopeful love interest, Allegra. Hitch believes that in order for Albert to be noticed by this beautiful woman, he must change the way he conducts himself, and the way Allegra perceives him. First, Hitch tries to help Albert gain a sense of self-esteem, in order for Allegra to notice him as a strong, outgoing, and successful man, rather than the shy and timid person he is. What Hitch wants his clients to experience a change in their â€Å"self-concept.† Alder (2012) describes self-concept as, â€Å"The relatively stable set of perceptions each individual holds on herself or himself † (G-11). Also stated in the text, â€Å"Children who have a low opinion of themselves are more likely to see themselves as victims of bullying, both in their classrooms and in cyberspace. The way we think and feel about ourselves strongly influences how we interpret others’ behavior (p. 119)†. Perhaps Albert had such a low sense of self-esteem that he truly believed women did not notice nor have an interest in him, when perhaps this belief could have been created due to his own sense of his self-concept. An early example of perception occurs when, early in the film, Sara is speaking with her friend Casey about the man she recently went on a date with. She says, â€Å"He was affectionate and sweet, and told me all of these affectionate things like how he can’t taste food and he wants three kids†¦ I never seen anyone get dressed so fast!† This is an example of how gender roles play an extremely important role in perception. According to Adler (2012), â€Å"†¦masculine males tend to see their interpersonal relationships as opportunities to win something. Feminine females typically see their interpersonal relationships as opportunities to be nurturing, to express their feelings and emotions† (p. 120). In this instance, Vance, the man involved, wa s not looking to commit to a relationship like Casey. She truly believed that since Vance was so kind and sweet, she would be able to open up to him as well, whereas he was only interested in a one-night stand. This moment is very pivotal,, as Casey and Sara believe because of this interaction, Hitch’s goal is to teach men how to â€Å"bed† women. Further on in the film, Sara uncovers the fact that her new love interest is in fact the infamous Hitch. When reacting to this discovery, Sara makes a snap judgment, which according to Webster Dictionary is â€Å"A judgment formed on the instant without deliberation.† She makes this kind of judgment in how she reacts to the fact that Hitch’s profession is supposedly teaching men how to â€Å"bed† women. Essentially, Sara ends the relationship, as well as contact between she and Hitch, without hearing Hitch’s side of the story. Snap judgments occur almost instantaneously, whether it is a first impression, or judgment relating to a situation where someone has self-disclosed information about themselves or others. Allegra as well tends to make these quick judgments, especially when she learns that Albert had been consulting with Hitch. She immediately assumes everything she fell in love with in him was just a marketing ploy of sorts, sold by a matchmaker. Making snap judgments can often lead to stereotyping the other person involved within the communication. Stereotyping is a subset of snap judgments, and is defined by Adler (2012) as â€Å"†¦exaggerated beliefs associated with a categorization system† (p.125). Sara takes part in stereotyping when she assumes all of Hitch’s clients, and Hitch himself are like Vance, the one-night-stand. Based on the information she has perceived, it would not be a stretch for her to make that particular judgment. If Sara had possessed the chance to meet Albert by this time, she would realize that not all of Hitch’s clients are as egotistical and narcissistic as Vance. At the same time, Albert is defying the stereotype of the normal â€Å"Hitch client† and wins Allegra over with his natural qualities, rather than the ones his matchmaker Hitch instructed him to have. Much of the communication Albert wins Allegra over with is nonverbal, especially due to the fact that he often stumbles over his words. Nonverbal Communication Hitch, begins with the statistic that, â€Å"60% of all human communication is nonverbal, body language, and 30% is your tone. This means that 90% of what you’re saying ain’t coming out of your mouth.† (Tennant, 2005). According to the Twelfth Edition of Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communication, nonverbal communication is any message that is expressed through nonlinguistic methods (p. 177). Nonverbal communication shares just as much importance as verbal communication, if not more, in that through these messages people share their true feelings and responses to the world around them. Unlike verbal communication, nonverbal communication is often unconscious and continuous, meaning that it is likely uncontrollable. Before a response is spoken, before the response is even heard, one is already nonverbally communicating. Nonverbal messages arise in numerous forms, from the way one moves his/her body, to the way one dresses and even speaks. Nonverbal messages support many functions. They can be used to repeat the verbal message that was just spoken. Similarly, they can be used to substitute for the verbal messages. For example, instead of saying yes one could nod. These cues and gestures are called emblems, which are nonverbal behaviors, which can be directly translated into words or phrases (A. Cordova, November 14, 2012). Nonverbal communication can either complement or contradict the verbal message. In complementing the message, the nonverbal communication not only adds to the message, but reinforces it. Messages may be contradictory when a person says one thing but really means another nonverbally. Nonverbal behaviors can also accent, emphasize, or draw attention to or away from a verbal message. Lastly, nonverbal communication can be used to control and regulate the flow of conversation, as well as start and end interactions (A. Cordova, November 14, 2012). The opening scene of Hitch, summarizes many of the ways that nonverbal communication plays a major role in everyday lives. This movie combined with Alex â€Å"Hitch† Hitchens, addresses how nonverbal communication is important in communication, especially with women, in the formation and enhancing of relationships. For example, Hitch points out that women often say verbally things that they really don’t mean: â€Å"This is a really bad time for me,† â€Å"I just need some space,† â€Å"I’m really into my career right now,† etc. (Tennant, 2005). Even though women say things like this, they may mean something entirely different. Hitch speaks of how sometimes women don’t know what they want until they see it. This is the part where nonverbal communication comes into play for men. In the very first scene, a woman’s dog rushes out of her hands and out of an elevator, only to be â€Å"saved† by the admiring man who hired Hitch, who in turn orchestrated the whole thing. The woman who lost her dog had presumably never met or spoken to the man who rescued her dog. Even though the woman had never verbally communicated with this man, she was extremely relieved, grateful, and impressed when she saw him defend her dog in the middle of the street. Without saying a single word, the man was able to improve his romantic chances with this woman greatly. The dog-rescue scene exemplifies the power of nonverbal communication. The majority of communication is nonverbal, thus Hitch emphasizes the importance of this aspect of communication. The simple action this man performs of rescuing the dog, communicates a great amount about his personality; he is able to show that he is caring and nurturing. While he doesn’t need to explicitly tell her, â€Å"Hi. I am a kind and thoughtful person. Are you interested?† she is able to infer his personality from his nonverbal way of communicating. Note the man’s tone when he returns the dog: his nurturing tone reassures her that everything is alright, as well as the fact that he brave and kind. One key aspect of nonverbal communication is paralanguage. Paralanguage is how a statement is spoken, which includes tone, pitch, emphasis, pronunciation, and rate. This man’s use of paralanguage allows him to portray his personality without having to explicitly tell the woman about himself and his traits. Further along in the movie, Hitch goes to meet up with a new client who is in need of desperate help from the â€Å"love doctor.† His name is Albert Brennaman and he was hopelessly and irrevocably in love with Allegra Cole. During this scene, Hitch observes Albert from afar to get a sense of what kind of guy he is. Albert is sitting on stairs eating and in a matter of seconds he manages to spill mustard on his slacks. He then goes on to pouring soda on a napkin and trying to remove the stain, only to end up accidentally kicking over his soda and ruining his whole lunch. Hitch is meanwhile still observing Albert. From Albert’s nonverbal communication portrayed in this scene, Hitch assumes that Albert is clumsy and doesn’t really have a clue. Although Albert was not trying to convey a message through his actions, he most certainly did. There are three types of nonverbal communication the Albert portrayed in this scene. Firstly, he was using kinesis. Kinesis is a ty pe of nonverbal communication that involves the body. Body orientation, eye contact, and posture are all examples of kinesis. Secondly, he nonverbally communicates through his physical characteristics: attire, groomed facial hair, glasses, etc. Lastly, he communicates through his personal environment (A. Cardova, November 14, 2012). Albert shows territoriality, because although that area on the stairs is public property he still in a sense claims the space as his own. Looking at how he kept that environment for that particular scene gives insight into how he may keep his home and or office space. His area on the stairs, after a parade of accidents ended up looking butchered and a hot mess (Tennant, 2005). From these cues Hitch can conclude that this man needs his professional help as a love coach, but also maybe as a life coach. Nonverbal communication truly comes alive in the next scene of the movie, where Hitch is at a local bar admiring his future love interest, Sara Melas. In this scene, Hitch speaks to the bartender, who informs him about Sara’s normal bar habits. She drinks a dirty martini, which is odd because she usually gets a beer. Hitch determines that she must have had a tough week and a beer just wasn’t going to do the trick. As the scene plays out, he ends up pretending to be Sara’s significant other in order to get rid of another admiring contender. He then continues to engage in conversation with her and begins listing out all the nonverbal signals she is giving. Hitch says, â€Å"†¦you’re sending all the right signals: no earrings, heels under two inches, your hair is pulled back, you’re wearing reading glasses with no book, and drinking a grey goose martini†¦ and if that wasn’t clear enough there’s always the f–k off that you’ve got stamped on your forehead.† (Tennant, 2005). All of these are examples of communicating nonverbally through kinesis, body language, and physical characteristics. Nonverbal communication exists throughout the entirety of the film, but to catch and understand how it affects the development of the relationships, one must pay close attention. Relationship Development Two main relationships develop throughout the film Hitch. These relationships include characters, Albert and Allegra, and Hitch and Sara. Hitch and Sara’s relationship begins to develop from the first time they speak with one another in a bar. This interaction is part of the â€Å"coming together† part of Mark L. Knapp’s â€Å"Stages of Relationship Development† Model. This part of the model includes the initiating process, experimenting process, intensifying process, integrating process, and the bonding process. Hitch walking over to Sara in the bar and initiating a conversation is an example of the initiation process. This process is shown when one shows that they are interested in another and make them feel valued and worth one’s time. Once an individual initiates conversation in the model, the interaction progresses to the experimenting stage. When people try to find something in common between both, creating small talk and getting to know each other, they are interacting within the experimenting stage. Hitch and Sara converse in this way at the bar, but it occurs again when Hitch reaches Sara at her work through a walkie-talkie to ask her on a date for the upcoming Saturday. This stunt he pulls shows Sara his personality and creativity. The intensifying stage in Sara and Hitch’s relationship occurs on their first date. Hitch believes he is already in love with her, and knows there is something special about their relationship. In the intensifying stage, people who are beginning to be a dating couple often move into the stage by spending more time together, going on more dates, and sometimes even saying â€Å"I love you† to each other. While Hitch and Sara are on their first date, they make plans to go on a second date, which is part of the intensifying stage. They continue going on dates during this section of the film and keep spending more and more time together. They then consider themselves an official couple after this stage, and enter into the integrating stage of Knapp’s model. During this stage, the couple begins to define themselves as one to others, and begin to make future plans involving one another. The bonding stage goes coherently with the integrating stage because the couple uses gestures in public to display that they are in a relationship. These gestures include, holding hands, public display of affection, and walking side-by-side sharing each other’s company. Once Hitch and Sara’s relationship progresses, they display public affection everywhere they go. In the film, Hitch is seen kissing Sara goodbye before she left for work, which is an example of the bonding stage of Mark Knapp’s Relationship Development Model. The final stage of the Relationship Development Model seen the relationship between Hitch and Sara is shown through the words â€Å"I love you† said to each other at the end of the film. This is a smooth continuation of all of the previous stages of the model because in order to get to their current stage of relationship where they feel so deeply about one another, they had to go through all of the previous stages. The relationship between characters Albert and Allegra occurs differently than the relationship between Hitch and Sara. Albert is a financial consultant for Allegra, a famous celebrity. The concept of complementarity plays a big role in their relationship. Complementarity is displayed when the well-known idea that opposites attract, comes true, and two people find what they hope for in a relationship through the other’s differences. By Albert just being a typical financial consultant and Allegra being a famous celebrity, society did not expect that this would ever be a compatible union. Allegra describes Albert as sweet, charming, and not like all other men, while Albert describes Allegra as the girl of his dreams, his angel, and the lady he would die for and cannot live without. By the two having these similar feelings regarding each other, a connection is made in the way they feel about one another. Through this, they are both able to find reward through their growing relationship. Similarity is found within a developing relationship when two people have similar interests and goals. Rewards in a relationship are defined by the exchange theory. According to the Twelfth Edition of Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communication, the exchange theory is defined as the way â€Å"we often seek out people who can give us rewards that are greater than or equal to the cost we encounter in dealing with them† (p.283). In this case, Albert finds Allegra’s personality charming, and feels that she would be a good match for him if she would only pay attention to him. Allegra pays attention to Albert because she knows that he is not like the other men she has previously dated. She finds a sense of security from Albert because she can trust him to love her alone, unlike any of the other men she has dated. In the conclusion of the film, Albert and Allegra get married, which is proof for the bonding and integrating stages of Mark Knapp’s relationship development model. The way in which these relationships are developed is unique to them, and is greatly influenced by their cultures. Culture Merriam-Webster defines culture as, †Ã¢â‚¬ ¦the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time.† Culture is something that is universal in nature, but is unique to every group of people. It is something that makes us as people of the world similar, and drastically different. Hitch looks at culture from a few different perspectives, one being from a familial stance, and the other relating to culture. Culture from a familial perspective deals with the dynamics of a family and how it is run. We are given small glimpses of families throughout Hitch, and for the most part, the culture seems to lean towards an individualistic culture. An individualistic culture is one that Adler (2012) would describe as a group of people who â€Å"†¦view their primary responsibility as helping themselves† (p. 38). People involved in an individualistic culture are very focused on the individual, and their needs in or der to further themselves in the world. A collectivistic culture is a type of culture that differs from this in that Adler (2012) speaks of as cultures that â€Å"feel loyalties and obligations to an in-group: one’s extended family, community, or even organization one works for† (p. 38). In Hitch, one of the more prominent characters Sara Melas, describes to Alex Hitchens an incident with her sister. By the way Sara speaks of her sister, Alex is able to figure out that she is speaking of her younger sister, due to the tone in her voice, and the phrasing she is using. Sara’s sister was involved in a near-death experience, and she explains how deeply impactful this experience was and how it has shaped how she lives. She cares very deeply for her younger sister and experiences intense pain and protectiveness when something negative happens. In this way, it seems that Sara is part of a larger collectivistic culture, due to the protectiveness and intense care she shows for her family. In the film, her life is mainly individualistic, but does indeed carry strong undertones of a collectivistic culture. Culture greatly deals with family and how one was raised, but it also heavily impacts individual relationships and how people interact within these connections. Cultures go about relationships and dating in drastically different ways. In some countries, couples are part of an arranged marriage, in other countries, the courting process is very formal, while in others, such as the one in Hitch, the relationship process is rather casual. Alex Hitchens works to bring couples together who wouldn’t normally be interested in one another, so perhaps one could label this as pairing a person from an in-group, with a person from an out-group. An in-group is a group where we find ourselves being able to identify with its members, whereas an out-group is a grouping of people with whom we would often label as different than us. In Hitch, the characters all deal with a great amount of power distance, which according to Adler (2012) is â€Å"†¦the degree to which members of a society accept an unequal distribution of power† (p. 39). The odd pairings Hitchens is able to bring together, often possess a higher degree of power distance. For example, Allegra and Albert, two people who no one ever thought could be together due to the extreme differences in their day to day lives and culture, were able to be together because the amount of power distance they saw in their relationships was minimal compared to what the outside world saw. The culture of New York deals with dating in a much more casual and open fashion. The thought that women are always looking for someone to be with, even if they say they’re not looking is extremely stressed. This shows aspects of an individualistic culture, due to the fact that the focus of life is greatly on oneself and the furthering of one’s life. Hitch displays many examples of culture weaved into normal, everyday life, both positive and negative. Conclusion The relationships that come together throughout Hitch, are wholly dependent upon communication. Their union is built upon a foundation of communication, both verbal and nonverbal, which is perceived in certain ways, and influenced by culture. The verbal communication is brought through spoken dialogue between people. Nonverbal communication is shown through body language and nonverbal cues, and as seen previously, makes up 60% of communication. Perception of verbal and nonverbal communication is pivotal, due to the fact that it is dependent upon the individual and how they understand something to be. Lastly, culture ties all of these aspects together, because it is due to the culture in which one is raised and the world in which they live in that they understand and interpret life. Hitch is a prime example of these aspects of communication because it brings together many of the important pieces of communication in a way that is easily relatable and understandable to the common person . References Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor II, R. R. (2012). Twelfth edition of interplay: the process of interpersonal communication. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Cardova A., (November 14, 2012) Nonverbal Communication. Interpersonal Communications. Lecture conducted from Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online. (2012). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 11/20/2012 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Tennant, A. (Director). Lassiter, J., Smith, W., Zee, T. (Producers). (2005). Hitch [Motion Picture] United States: Columbia Pictures

Reflection Paper on a Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind is a story based on the life of the famous mathematician John Forbes Nash, Jr. His contributions to mathematics are outstanding. When he was an undergraduate, he proved Brouwer's fixed point theorem. He then broke one of Riemann's most perplexing mathematical problems and became famous for the Nash Solution. Game Theory from then on, Nash provided breakthrough after breakthrough in mathematics. In 1958 John Forbes Nash was described as being ‘the most promising young mathematician in the world'. John solved problems in mathematics that many mathematicians deemed not solvable. On the threshold of such a promising and outstanding career, he then went on to suffer through three decades of a devastating form of paranoid schizophrenia. He lost his teaching professions and his job. He refused all medical treatment and spent years in and out of delusional states. Remarkably, in 1994 John won the Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his work on Game Theory, he was only 21 when he wrote his paper. The story of John Forbes Nash Jr. is definitely connected with Logic, as he is a mathematician. In his breaking of many perplexing mathematical problems, he used logic. And in producing his famous Game theory, logical systems were used. Among the important properties that logical systems can have: ?Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another. ?Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from true premises. A logical system has the property of soundness when the logical system has the property of validity and only uses premises that prove true (or, in the case of axioms, are true by definition). ?Completeness, which means that if a theorem is true, it can be proven. Soundness, which means that the premises are true and the argument is valid. In one of the scenes in the movie, where Nash was in a bar with friends, the use of logic was very evident. While Nash and his friends all have their eyes on the same Blonde woman, you begin to sense his ‘genius moment'. He surprises his colleagues with the question that if we all want the same woman, nobody wins, if we all go afte r her friends, nobody wins, and thus there must be a solution to ensure that everyone wins. With that, Nash writes a formula on a napkin, rushes out of the bar and works feverishly on his new theory. The scene shows the art of logic, which examines three acts of the reason: simple apprehension, judgment and reasoning. Simple Apprehension is the grasp of a concept. A concept is also called an idea, a species, an intelligible form, and a mental word. A concept has an extension, which is the group of things included under the concept. A singular concept is the concept of one individual, for example, your concept of President Abraham Lincoln. A universal concept extends to a whole class of things. The more features (or notes) included in a universal concept, the narrower its extension. A transcendental concept is one that applies to anything that exists, for example being, thing, unit, distinct, good, true, beautiful. A concept by itself is not true or false, just as a single word is not true or false. A concept is a sign of a thing, just as a spoken word is a sign of a concept, and through the concept the spoken word is a sign of the thing. A concept is not merely a sensation stored in the mind, but is an immaterial act of understanding. A Judgment is expressed in a complete sentence or proposition. Judgments are either attributive, when we say â€Å"A is B†, where A is a subject and B is a predicate, or existential, as when we say â€Å"A exists†. Affirmation or affirmative judgment is called composition, because we are putting two concepts together. Negation is called division, because we are taking two concepts apart. A judgment is either true or false. Reasoning involves three terms or concepts, and two judgments. The major term is the broadest, the minor term is the narrowest, and the middle term is between the two, included in the meaning of the major term, and including in it the meaning of the minor term. An example is given in the table below (The Structure of a Syllogism). Major PremiseEvery man is mortal. Mortal = major term Minor PremiseKenji is a man. Man = middle term ConclusionKenji is mortal. Kenji = minor term A syllogism is the verbal expression of an act of reasoning. In a syllogism or perfect argumentation, where one thing is given, another thing necessarily follows. Other forms of argumentation give lesser degrees of certainty. A perfect syllogism employes deduction, which is reasoning that starts from general truths, and then applies them in a particular instance.

Is Humanity Suicidal? Essay

I do not think that humanity is suicidal, we just sometimes fail to realize the long-term effects that certain actions have on our environment. I completely agree with E.O. Wilson when he said, â€Å"We are smart enough and have time enough to avoid all environmental catastrophes of civilization-threatening dimensions.† Basically what he is saying is that we have the time and capability to prevent an environmental catastrophe, but the time to act is now. We as a society need to change our thought process in which â€Å"the mind works comfortably backward and forward for a few years, spanning a period not exceeding one or two generations† (Smith 3). We need to start thinking ahead and consider four to five generations ahead of us rather than two or three. The only way to achieve this is by spreading awareness. We need to start convincing people that changes must be made now in order to sustain our environment. People may not listen at first, but they will if enough people start to discuss it and it gains momentum. For instance, I can remember when the topic of electric cars first came up in the media about ten years or so ago. Back then, people laughed at the idea of an electric car, but now hybrids and non-gasoline powered vehicles have become a norm in today’s eco-friendly society. That is just one example, but there are many others in which society doesn’t take things seriously at first, but then comes to realize that maybe there is a problem and we should do something about it. All we can hope for is that we as a society address these problems sooner rather than later.

Foundation and Empire Acknowledgments

The date was August 1, 1941. World War II had been raging for two years. France had fallen, the Battle of Britain had been fought, and the Soviet Union had just been invaded by Nazi Germany. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was four months in the future. But on that day, with Europe in flames, and the evil shadow of Adolf Hitler apparently falling over all the world, what was chiefly on my mind was a meeting toward which I was hastening. I was 21 years old, a graduate student in chemistry at Columbia University, and I had been writing science fiction professionally for three years. In that time, I had sold five stories to John Campbell, editor of Astounding, and the fifth story, â€Å"Nightfall,† was about to appear in the September 1941 issue of the magazine. I had an appointment to see Mr. Campbell to tell him the plot of a new story I was planning to write, and the catch was that I had no plot in mind, not the trace of one. I therefore tried a device I sometimes use. I opened a book at random and set up free association, beginning with whatever I first saw. The book I had with me was a collection of the Gilbert and Sullivan plays. I happened to open it to the picture of the Fairy Queen of lolanthe throwing herself at the feet of Private Willis. I thought of soldiers, of military empires, of the Roman Empire – of a Galactic Empire – aha! Why shouldn't I write of the fall of the Galactic Empire and of the return of feudalism, written from the viewpoint of someone in the secure days of the Second Galactic Empire? After all, I had read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire not once, but twice. I was bubbling over by the time I got to Campbell's, and my enthusiasm must have been catching for Campbell blazed up as I had never seen him do. In the course of an hour we built up the notion of a vast series of connected stories that were to deal in intricate detail with the thousand-year period between the First and Second Galactic Empires. This was to be illuminated by the science of psychohistory, which Campbell and I thrashed out between us. On August 11, 1941, therefore, I began the story of that interregnum and called it â€Å"Foundation.† In it, I described how the psychohistorian, Hari Seldon, established a pair of Foundations at opposite ends of the Universe under such circumstances as to make sure that the forces of history would bring about the second Empire after one thousand years instead of the thirty thousand that would be required otherwise. The story was submitted on September 8 and, to make sure that Campbell really meant what he said about a series, I ended â€Å"Foundation† on a cliff-hanger. Thus, it seemed to me, he would be forced to buy a second story. However, when I started the second story (on October 24), I found that I had outsmarted myself. I quickly wrote myself into an impasse, and the Foundation series would have died an ignominious death had I not had a conversation with Fred Pohl on November 2 (on the Brooklyn Bridge, as it happened). I don't remember what Fred actually said, but, whatever it was, it pulled me out of the hole. â€Å"Foundation† appeared in the May 1942 issue of Astounding and the succeeding story, â€Å"Bridle and Saddle,† in the June 1942 issue. After that there was only the routine trouble of writing the stories. Through the remainder of the decade, John Campbell kept my nose to the grindstone and made sure he got additional Foundation stories. â€Å"The Big and the Little† was in the August 1944 Astounding, â€Å"The Wedge† in the October 1944 issue, and â€Å"Dead Hand† in the April 1945 issue. (These stories were written while I was working at the Navy Yard in Philadelphia.) On January 26, 1945, I began â€Å"The Mule,† my personal favorite among the Foundation stories, and the longest yet, for it was 50,000 words. It was printed as a two-part serial (the very first serial I was ever responsible for) in the November and December 1945 issues. By the time the second part appeared I was in the army. After I got out of the army, I wrote â€Å"Now You See It-† which appeared in the January 1948 issue. By this time, though, I had grown tired of the Foundation stories so I tried to end them by setting up, and solving, the mystery of the location of the Second Foundation. Campbell would have none of that, however. He forced me to change the ending, and made me promise I would do one more Foundation story. Well, Campbell was the kind of editor who could not be denied, so I wrote one more Foundation story, vowing to myself that it would be the last. I called it â€Å"-And Now You Don't,† and it appeared as a three-part serial in the November 1949, December 1949, and January 1950 issues of Astounding. By then, I was on the biochemistry faculty of Boston University School of Medicine, my first book had just been published, and I was determined to move on to new things. I had spent eight years on the Foundation, written nine stories with a total of about 220,000 words. My total earnings for the series came to $3,641 and that seemed enough. The Foundation was over and done with, as far as I was concerned. In 1950, however, hardcover science fiction was just coming into existence. I had no objection to earning a little more money by having the Foundation series reprinted in book form. I offered the series to Doubleday (which had already published a science-fiction novel by me, and which had contracted for another) and to Little-Brown, but both rejected it. In that year, though, a small publishing firm, Gnome Press, was beginning to be active, and it was prepared to do the Foundation series as three books. The publisher of Gnome felt, however, that the series began too abruptly. He persuaded me to write a small Foundation story, one that would serve as an introductory section to the first book (so that the first part of the Foundation series was the last written). In 1951, the Gnome Press edition of Foundation was published, containing the introduction and the first four stories of the series. In 1952, Foundation and Empire appeared, with the fifth and sixth stories; and in 1953, Second Foundation appeared, with the seventh and eighth stories. The three books together came to be called The Foundation Trilogy. The mere fact of the existence of the Trilogy pleased me, but Gnome Press did not have the financial clout or the publishing knowhow to get the books distributed properly, so that few copies were sold and fewer still paid me royalties. (Nowadays, copies of first editions of those Gnome Press books sell at $50 a copy and up-but I still get no royalties from them.) Ace Books did put out paperback editions of Foundation and of Foundation and Empire, but they changed the titles, and used cut versions. Any money that was involved was paid to Gnome Press and I didn't see much of that. In the first decade of the existence of The Foundation Trilogy it may have earned something like $1500 total. And yet there was some foreign interest. In early 1961, Timothy Seldes, who was then my editor at Doubleday, told me that Doubleday had received a request for the Portuguese rights for the Foundation series and, since they weren't Doubleday books, he was passing them on to me. I sighed and said, â€Å"The heck with it, Tim. I don't get royalties on those books.† Seldes was horrified, and instantly set about getting the books away from Gnome Press so that Doubleday could publish them instead. He paid no attention to my loudly expressed fears that Doubleday â€Å"would lose its shirt on them.† In August 1961 an agreement was reached and the Foundation books became Doubleday property. What's more, Avon Books, which had published a paperback version of Second Foundation, set about obtaining the rights to all three from Doubleday, and put out nice editions. From that moment on, the Foundation books took off and began to earn increasing royalties. They have sold well and steadily, both in hardcover and softcover, for two decades so far. Increasingly, the letters I received from the readers spoke of them in high praise. They received more attention than all my other books put together. Doubleday also published an omnibus volume, The Foundation Trilogy, for its Science Fiction Book Club. That omnibus volume has been continuously featured by the Book Club for over twenty years. Matters reached a climax in 1966. The fans organizing the World Science Fiction Convention for that year (to be held in Cleveland) decided to award a Hugo for the best all-time series, where the series, to qualify, had to consist of at least three connected novels. It was the first time such a category had been set up, nor has it been repeated since. The Foundation series was nominated, and I felt that was going to have to be glory enough for me, since I was sure that Tolkien's â€Å"Lord of the Rings† would win. It didn't. The Foundation series won, and the Hugo I received for it has been sitting on my bookcase in the livingroom ever since. In among all this litany of success, both in money and in fame, there was one annoying side-effect. Readers couldn't help but notice that the books of the Foundation series covered only three hundred-plus years of the thousand-year hiatus between Empires. That meant the Foundation series â€Å"wasn't finished.† I got innumerable letters from readers who asked me to finish it, from others who demanded I finish it, and still others who threatened dire vengeance if I didn't finish it. Worse yet, various editors at Doubleday over the years have pointed out that it might be wise to finish it. It was flattering, of course, but irritating as well. Years had passed, then decades. Back in the 1940s, I had been in a Foundation-writing mood. Now I wasn't. Starting in the late 1950s, I had been in a more and more nonfiction-writing mood. That didn't mean I was writing no fiction at all. In the 1960s and 1970s, in fact, I wrote two science-fiction novels and a mystery novel, to say nothing of well over a hundred short stories – but about eighty percent of what I wrote was nonfiction. One of the most indefatigable nags in the matter of finishing the Foundation series was my good friend, the great science-fiction writer, Lester del Rey. He was constantly telling me I ought to finish the series and was just as constantly suggesting plot devices. He even told Larry Ashmead, then my editor at Doubleday, that if I refused to write more Foundation stories, he, Lester, would be willing to take on the task. When Ashmead mentioned this to me in 1973, I began another Foundation novel out of sheer desperation. I called it â€Å"Lightning Rod† and managed to write fourteen pages before other tasks called me away. The fourteen pages were put away and additional years passed. In January 1977, Cathleen Jordan, then my editor at Doubleday, suggested I do â€Å"an important book – a Foundation novel, perhaps.† I said, â€Å"I'd rather do an autobiography,† and I did – 640,000 words of it. In January 1981, Doubleday apparently lost its temper. At least, Hugh O'Neill, then my editor there, said, â€Å"Betty Prashker wants to see you,† and marched me into her office. She was then one of the senior editors, and a sweet and gentle person. She wasted no time. â€Å"Isaac,† she said, â€Å"you are going to write a novel for us and you are going to sign a contract to that effect.† â€Å"Betty,† I said, â€Å"I am already working on a big science book for Doubleday and I have to revise the Biographical Encyclopedia for Doubleday and -â€Å" â€Å"It can all wait,† she said. â€Å"You are going to sign a contract to do a novel. What's more, we're going to give you a $50,000 advance.† That was a stunner. I don't like large advances. They put me under too great an obligation. My average advance is something like $3,000. Why not? It's all out of royalties. I said, â€Å"That's way too much money, Betty.† â€Å"No, it isn't,† she said. â€Å"Doubleday will lose its shirt,† I said. â€Å"You keep telling us that all the time. It won't.† I said, desperately, â€Å"All right. Have the contract read that I don't get any money until I notify you in writing that I have begun the novel.† â€Å"Are you crazy?† she said. â€Å"You'll never start if that clause is in the contract. You get $25,000 on signing the contract, and $25,000 on delivering a completed manuscript.† â€Å"But suppose the novel is no good.† â€Å"Now you're being silly,† she said, and she ended the conversation. That night, Pat LoBrutto, the science-fiction editor at Doubleday called to express his pleasure. â€Å"And remember,† he said, â€Å"that when we say ‘novel' we mean ‘science-fiction novel,' not anything else. And when we say ‘science-fiction novel,' we mean ‘Foundation novel' and not anything else.† On February 5, 1981, I signed the contract, and within the week, the Doubleday accounting system cranked out the check for $25,000. I moaned that I was not my own master anymore and Hugh O'Neill said, cheerfully, â€Å"That's right, and from now on, we're going to call every other week and say, ‘Where's the manuscript?'† (But they didn't. They left me strictly alone, and never even asked for a progress report.) Nearly four months passed while I took care of a vast number of things I had to do, but about the end of May, I picked up my own copy of The Foundation Trilogy and began reading. I had to. For one thing, I hadn't read the Trilogy in thirty years and while I remembered the general plot, I did not remember the details. Besides, before beginning a new Foundation novel I had to immerse myself in the style and atmosphere of the series. I read it with mounting uneasiness. I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes, all the nearly quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and of conversations. No action. No physical suspense. What was all the fuss about, then? Why did everyone want more of that stuff? – To be sure, I couldn't help but notice that I was turning the pages eagerly, and that I was upset when I finished the book, and that I wanted more, but I was the author, for goodness' sake. You couldn't go by me. I was on the edge of deciding it was all a terrible mistake and of insisting on giving back the money, when (quite by accident, I swear) I came across some sentences by science-fiction writer and critic, James Gunn, who, in connection with the Foundation series, said, â€Å"Action and romance have little to do with the success of the Trilogy – virtually all the action takes place offstage, and the romance is almost invisible – but the stories provide a detective-story fascination with the permutations and reversals of ideas.† Oh, well, if what was needed were â€Å"permutations and reversals of ideas,† then that I could supply. Panic receded, and on June 10, 1981, I dug out the fourteen pages I had written more than eight years before and reread them. They sounded good to me. I didn't remember where I had been headed back then, but I had worked out what seemed to me to be a good ending now, and, starting page 15 on that day, I proceeded to work toward the new ending. I found, to my infinite relief, that I had no trouble getting back into a â€Å"Foundation-mood,† and, fresh from my rereading, I had Foundation history at my finger-tips. There were differences, to be sure: 1) The original stories were written for a science-fiction magazine and were from 7,000 to 50,000 words long, and no more. Consequently, each book in the trilogy had at least two stories and lacked unity. I intended to make the new book a single story. 2) I had a particularly good chance for development since Hugh said, â€Å"Let the book find its own length, Isaac. We don't mind a long book.† So I planned on 140,000 words, which was nearly three times the length of â€Å"The Mule,† and this gave me plenty of elbow-room, and I could add all sorts of little touches. 3) The Foundation series had been written at a time when our knowledge of astronomy was primitive compared with what it is today. I could take advantage of that and at least mention black holes, for instance. I could also take advantage of electronic computers, which had not been invented until I was half through with the series. The novel progressed steadily, and on January 17, 1982, I began final copy. I brought the manuscript to Hugh O'Neill in batches, and the poor fellow went half-crazy since he insisted on reading it in this broken fashion. On March 25, 1982, I brought in the last bit, and the very next day got the second half of the advance. I had kept â€Å"Lightning Rod† as my working title all the way through, but Hugh finally said, â€Å"Is there any way of putting ‘Foundation' into the title, Isaac?† I suggested Foundations at Bay, therefore, and that may be the title that will actually be used 1. You will have noticed that I have said nothing about the plot of the new Foundation novel. Well, naturally. I would rather you buy and read the book. And yet there is one thing I have to confess to you. I generally manage to tie up all the loose ends into one neat little bow-knot at the end of my stories, no matter how complicated the plot might be. In this case, however, I noticed that when I was all done, one glaring little item remained unresolved. I am hoping no one else notices it because it clearly points the way to the continuation of the series. It is even possible that I inadvertently gave this away for at the end of the novel, I wrote: â€Å"The End (for now).† I very much fear that if the novel proves successful, Doubleday will be at my throat again, as Campbell used to be in the old days. And yet what can I do but hope that the novel is very successful indeed. What a quandary!

Certainty Essay Example for Free

Certainty Essay Essay Topic: Certainty Choose cite format: APA MLA Harvard Chicago ASA IEEE AMA company About StudyMoose Contact Careers Help Center Donate a Paper Legal Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Complaints The Purpose of the Certainty of Objects Requirement – For a Trust to exist, A must: (i) hold a specific claim-right or power; and (ii) be under a duty to B not to use that claim-right or power for A’s own benefit (unless and to the extent that A is also a beneficiary of the Trust). In other words, for a Trust to exist, A must be under the core Trust duty. The certainty requirements for a Trust simply reflect the fact that A must be under a duty to B in relation to a specific right. The certainty of objects requirement ensures that: (i) A owes a duty to a specific person; and (ii) A’s duty is certain enough to be enforced. The certainty of objects requirement can sometimes be seen as an inconvenient obstacle that can trip up a party (A0) trying to set up a Trust. However, it serves a vital purpose: a court cannot enforce a duty unless that duty is adequately defined. This point is not peculiar to Trusts. For example, an agreement between A and B can only impose a contractual duty on A to B if it is satisfies a certainty test: the nature of A’s duty to B must be adequately defined. In understanding the certainty of objects requirement, it is important to ask what information the court needs in order to enforce A’s supposed duty to B. If that information is lacking, A’s supposed duty cannot be enforced; so A will be under no duty to B; so there can be no Trust. 2. Discretionary Trusts – A discretionary Trust is a form of Trust (see p 222-4 of the book): it can exist only if A is under the core Trust duty. Example 1a: A0 transfers ? 100,000 to A subject to a duty: (i) not to use that money for A’s own benefit; and (ii) to invest the money prudently; and (iii) at the end of 21 years, to pay any unspent part of the ? 00,000 and its income to Oxfam. A0 also stipulates that, during that 21 years, A can, if he wishes, pay all or any of the ? 100,000 and its income to all or any of A0’s children or grandchildren. In such a case, there is clearly a Trust: A is under the core Trust duty. And Oxfam is a beneficiary of that Trust: A owes the core Trust duty to Oxfam. A0’s children and grandchildren are not, however, beneficiaries of a Trust: A does not owe them the core Trust duty. Rather, A has a power: A can, if he wishes, give all or any of the money to all or any f A0’s children and grandchildren. 1 See eg G Scammell & Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251. 1 – A discretionary Trust is a particular form of Trust: it exists where A, in addition to being under the core Trust duty, has a power to choose how to distribute the benefit of the right A holds on Trust. Example 1b: A0 transfers ? 100,000 to A subject to a duty: (i) not to use that money for A’s own benefit; and (ii) to pay the money, in equal shares, to all of A0’s children and grandchildren. In such a case, there is clearly a Trust: A is under the core Trust duty. There is no discretionary Trust: A does not have a power to choose how to distribute the benefit of the ? 100,000. Rather, there is a fixed Trust: A is under a duty to distribute the benefit of the right held on Trust in a specific way. Example 1c: A0 transfers ? 100,000 to A subject to a duty: (i) not to use that money for A’s own benefit; and (ii) to invest the money prudently; and (iii) by the end of 21 years, to have distributed that ? 100,000 and its income, as A sees fit, amongst all or any of A0’s children or grandchildren. In such a case, there is a discretionary Trust. A does owe the core Trust duty to A0’s children and grandchildren; but A has a power to choose how to distribute the benefit of the ? 100,000. 3. Discretionary Trusts & Certainty of Objects: The â€Å"Any Given Person† Test Example 2: A0 transfers ? 100,000 to A subject to a duty: (i) not to use that money for A’s own benefit; and (ii) to invest the money prudently; and (iii) by the end of 21 years, to have distributed that ? 100,000 and its income, as A sees fit, amongst all or any of A0’s relatives. In Example 2, there seems to be a problem. A0 has attempted to set up a discretionary Trust. However, such a Trust depends on A being under a duty not to pay any of the money to a person who is not a relative of A0. But can a court enforce that duty? For example, let’s say A chooses to pay out ? 5,000 to X. Is there a meaningful test the court can use to decide if X really is a relative of A0? If not, a key part of A’s intended duty cannot be enforced; in that case, the intended discretionary Trust cannot exist. And, if that occurs, A will hold the ? 100,000 on Resulting Trust for A0 (or, if A0 has died, for A0’s estate). We can sum up this point by saying that, for a discretionary Trust to exist, it must pass the â€Å"any given person† test: a court must be able to tell of any given person (eg X) whether or not that person falls within the class of those to whom A is permitted to distribute the benefit of the right A holds on Trust. 2 That â€Å"any given person† test is often referred to as the â€Å"given postulant† test. In re Baden (No 2),3 the Court of Appeal considered whether a discretionary Trust for A0’s relatives could pass that test. 2 3 See per Lord Wilberforce in McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424 at 456. [1973] Ch 9. Stamp LJ held that the discretionary Trust was valid. His Lordship reached that conclusion by taking a very narrow view of relatives as including only A0’s statutory next of kin (ie those close relatives specified by statute as being able to acquire A0’s rights if A0 dies without making a valid will). 4 Sachs and Megaw LJJ took a much broader approach to the term â€Å"relative†, defining it as anyone sharing an ancestor with A0. 5 That definition seems to cause a problem: if X claims that he and A0 had the same great-great-great-great-great grandmother, can the court really test that claim? Sachs and Megaw LJJ both dealt with that point by saying that the onus is on X to prove that claim; until X does so, it must be assumed that X does not share an ancestor with A0. 6 The approach of Sachs and Megaw LJJ (assuming X is out of the permitted class, unless and until X can show otherwise) seems to make the â€Å"any given person† test redundant. For example, if A0 tries to set up a discretionary Trust in which A has a power to distribute the benefit of a right to anyone who is a â€Å"good person†, we might expect A0’s attempt to fail: there is no way for a court to tell if X is or is not a â€Å"good person†. However, on the approach of Sachs and Megaw LJJ, we could instead say that the discretionary Trust is valid – it is just that, if X cannot prove he is a â€Å"good person†, it will be assumed that he is not such a person. It seems that neither Sachs LJ nor Megaw LJ wanted to leave the law in such a way as to permit there to be a discretionary Trust in favour of anyone who is a â€Å"good person†. So each judge added a further certainty requirement. Sachs LJ stated that the class of those to whom A can distribute the benefit of A’s right must be â€Å"conceptually certain†: that is, it must be possible to come up with a definition of the class. Practical, evidential problems as to whether X is or is not within that definition can be dealt with by applying the simple rule that X is out of the class until he proves otherwise. So the â€Å"good person† discretionary Trust will be invalid as there is no clear way of defining that term: it is conceptually uncertain. In contrast, whilst it may be difficult, or even impossible, to tell if X is or is not a relative of A0, that evidential uncertainty will not defeat the discretionary Trust. Megaw LJ added a different requirement, stating that a discretionary Trust can only be valid if there are a â€Å"substantial number† of people who are clearly within the class to whom A can distribute the benefit of A’s right. 8 Again, that requirement can be used to mean that a â€Å"good person† discretionary Trust is invalid, whereas a â€Å"relatives† discretionary Trust is not. The extra requirements imposed by Sachs and Megaw LJJ do not assist in fulfilling the purpose of the â€Å"any given person† test: making sure the court can tell if A distributes the benefit of the right to a person outside the permitted class. It may be that each requirement instead aims to ensure that the discretionary Trust makes some practical 4 5 [1973] Ch 9 at 28-29. Ibid at 21-22 (following the lead of the first instance judge, Brightman J). 6 Here, again, the lead of Brightman J was followed. 7 Ibid at 20. 8 Ibid at 24. 3 sense: for example, if it is not possible to give a conceptually certain definition to the class, it may well be that no-one can show he is within that class. Megaw LJ’s requirement for a â€Å"substantial number† to be within the class is of course quite vague: the point seems to be that, for a iscretionary Trust to make sense, A must have a genuine choice to make as to who will receive the benefit of A’s right. However, that point is not always correct: for example, the discretion in a discretionary Trust could come from A having a power to decide how much of the benefit of A’s right a particular individual should receive. 4. 4. 1 Discretionary Trusts & Certainty of Objects: Further Tests The â€Å"full list† test? At one point, it was suggested that a discretionary trust could be valid only if the court could draw up a full list of the people to whom A is permitted to distribute the benefit of a right. On that view, in Example 2, a discretionary trust would arise only if it is possible to draw up a full list of A0’s relatives. However, in McPhail v Doulton, the House of Lords rejected that view. 9 It was based on the idea that, if A failed in his duty to distribute the benefit of the right, a court would have to step in and decide how to distribute. And, to avoid favouring any one person, the court would have to order equal division of the benefit of the right amongst all members of the class. On that view, a discretionary trust would become, in effect, like the fixed Trust in Example 1b: so a full list would be necessary. In McPhail v Doulton, Lord Wilberforce pointed out that, if A fails in his duty to distribute the benefit of a right, a court does not have to order equal division. 10 After all, such equal division could be one of the worst ways of distributing the benefit of a right: for example, splitting up a fund of ? 100,000 equally among 1,000 people would mean that no one person gains a substantial benefit from the discretionary trust. So, given the other means by which the court can step in to execute a discretionary trust, there is no need to apply the â€Å"full list† test. 4. 2 The â€Å"administrative workability† test The fact that a court may need to step in and execute a discretionary trust does not mean that a discretionary trust must pass the â€Å"full list† test. Nonetheless, it may have some impact. For example, if the terms of the attempted discretionary trust mean that there is no sensible plan a court could adopt to execute that supposed trust, then A0’s attempt to set up a discretionary trust must fail. This point may explain the (rarely relevant) â€Å"administrative workability† test. 11 9 [1971] AC 424. Ibid at 456-7. 11 That test is referred to by Lord Wilberforce in McPhail v Doulton: [1971] 1 AC 424 at 457. 10 4 For example, in one case,12 A0 (a council shortly to disappear as part of a reorganisation) attempted to set up a discretionary trust (of a large sum of money) for the benefit of all the former residents of the area covered by that council. The class of people to whom A could distribute the benefit of its right would thus include over 2 million people. It was found that the council’s attempt to set up a discretionary Trust failed: the planned Trust was â€Å"administratively unworkable†. The problem here may be that, if A fails to perform his duty to distribute, the court will have to step in. And is there any sensible way order a court could make to distribute the benefit of A’s right? We have to bear in mind the need for a court to avoid making the type of contentious political decision which it is ill-suited to make and which may cause resentment. 3 Of course, in most cases, no such problems arise: the â€Å"administrative workability† test rarely prevents an intended discretionary trust from arising. This explanation of the â€Å"administrative workability† test explains why it applies to discretionary trusts but not to attempts to give A a power (as in Example 1a). If A chooses not to exercise a power to distribute the benefit of a right then, as A is under no duty to do so, a court does not need to step in and order some form of distribution. There is thus no risk of a court facing the dilemma that would arise if an administratively unworkable discretionary trust were allowed to be valid. 4. 3 The â€Å"non-capricious† test Although the â€Å"administrative workability† test does not apply to powers, that does not mean that powers are free from certainty tests. For example if A has a power to distribute the benefit of a right to all or any of a certain class of people then, as is the case with a discretionary trust, A is under a duty not to distribute outside that class. So, with a power as with a iscretionary trust, the â€Å"any given person† test applies:14 the power is only valid if a court can tell, should A exercise the power in favour of X, whether or not X is in the permitted class. Sometimes, when accepting a power, A also comes under a duty to act loyally and responsibly when considering whether to exercise that power. In such a case, for example, A (as is the case if A holds a right on a discretionary trust) cannot simply ignore the power: he is under a duty to members of the class of potential recipients to consider periodically whether or not to exercise the power. 5 In these cases, A can be said to have a â€Å"fiduciary power†: A is not just under the negative duty not to distribute outside the permitted class; he also has some positive duties in relation to the power. It has been held that A0’s attempt to set up such a power will fail if the intended power is â€Å"capricious†: if there are no sensible criteria A can apply in considering whether and how 12 13 R v District Auditor, ex p West Yorkshire MCC [1986] RVR 24 (noted by Harpum [1986] CLJ 391). For example, would the money be better spent on paying for a new school, or a new hospital, or new sports facilities? 4 See eg re Gulbenkian [1970] AC 508. 15 For a discussion of A’s duties in such a case see eg per Megarry V-C in re Hay [1982] 1 WLR 202, esp at 210. 5 to exercise his power. 16 This does not mean that, when giving A the intended fiduciary power, A0 needs to spell out what factors A should take into account. However, it does mean that if the supposed power is â€Å"capricious† (ie there is no sensible scheme A can come up with) then A0’s attempt to give A the power must fail. Two points are worth noting about this â€Å"non-capricious† test. First, if it is linked to A0’s attempt to impose a duty on A to act loyally and responsibly when considering whether to exercise a power, it must apply to an attempt to set up a discretionary trust: such a duty is a key part of a discretionary trust. Second, in practice, it is very unlikely that this test will present a problem: people rarely go round setting up bizarre powers that cannot be considered in a sensible way. 4. 4 The â€Å"one person† test Example 3: A0, an owner of a large number of paintings, dies. In his will, he instructs A (his executor) to allow â€Å"each of my friends† to purchase one of those paintings each, at half its market value. In such a case, A0 does not attempt to set up a discretionary Trust: A has no power to choose how to distribute his rights. Rather, each friend of A has a fixed entitlement. A0 is attempting to make a conditional gift: if X satisfies a particular condition (if he is a friend of A0) he has a specific right. Nonetheless, it may seem that there is still a certainty problem: how can A (or the court) tell if X is or is not a friend of A0? However, in re Barlow, the essential facts of which were identical to Example 3,17 Browne-Wilkinson J held that the conditional gift was valid. His Lordship noted that an attempt to set up a discretionary Trust for â€Å"friends of A0† would fail: applying Sachs LJ’s test in re Baden (No 2), the term â€Å"friends of A0† is conceptually uncertain. However, a conditional gift should be treated differently: if there was just one person who could clearly show he was, on any reasonable test, a friend of A0, that person is entitled to acquire one of the paintings. 8 The test applied in re Barlow has been criticised. However, it can be defended. If an attempted discretionary Trust (eg in favour of â€Å"friends of A0†) fails a certainty test, then someone who could have benefitted from A’s power (eg a clear friend of A0) will miss out. But, in any case, that person only had a chance of receiving a benefit; he had no legal guarantee. In contrast, if a conditional gift is found to be invalid when there is a person who definitely stands to benefit from it, that person is deprived of a definite entitlement: a right given to him by A0. Certainty. (2018, Oct 14).