Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Issue 22 Flagged
Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
My argument is as follow:
Should laws be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places? By alleging so, the claimer seems to imply that flexibility outweigh stability both in publishing and performing a law. However, this is a very complex question that even specific circumstance can hardly bear a eclectic answer. Specifically, let us consider the Anti-trust, a law to rule merge and monopoly, to see a case that both stability and flexibility are important, but itís notoriously hard to determine which comes first.
Stability and consistency is crucial for Anti-trust for three reasons. Firstly, a consistency in such a law acts as a threat to those who want to develop monopoly, therefore, it is less likely that a market is ruled only by some oligarchy, so that the price in that market is modulated freely by free competition and keep the price low, which will benefit the consumer. Secondly, a stability in Anti-trust preserve the possibility that any new corporation can join this market, otherwise the oligarchy will keep the patent or technics so that no new comer can join. Thirdly, a consistency in anti-trust offers a conventional rule for those big companys and offers a ensurance for their patent otherwise they will have no incentive to innovation for fear that any innovation will be unjustifiably prosecuted to promote monopoly overnight and they will lose their patent.
Flexibility is also important for three reasons. Firstly, the law of Anti-trust is derived from those past cases and trials in specific areas, so that in a new area, its unreasonable to apply the dogma without modification. Secondly, as the time and development goes on, the standard of average company as well as the market has grown or shrink somewhat, so the law of Anti-trust should change somewhat. Thirdly, the premise, the market in which the ideal company competes cannot be precisely determined. Itís difficult to determine whether the Nokia company is a big fish in the market of mobile phone or a small fish in a bigger market, say, the communication tools. This makes the judgement of monopoly or merge according to anti-trust even more difficult.
both stability and flexibility are important, however, itís notoriously hard to determine which comes first. For instance, microsoft was once trialed to have forge monopoly in the operating system market. For the concern of stability of anti-trust, microsoft should be divided into several companies or at least sell some of its part to other firms, in order to modulate the prices, to ensure that other incubate counterparts can compete and to rule out the permission of monopoly. Howeve, fot the concern of flexibility, microsoft has once played a crucial role in savaging American economy from the duldrums in 1990s, moreover, dividing such a monolith could probabily let down the economy and give in this profitable market to other countries. To make the matters worse, Microsoft even alleged that they are just a small company in the market of software instead a big one in O.S. So, should we remain a consistance in anti-trust? Or should we give microsoft a exception for its crucial role in economy? This is such a complex question that even the wisest lawyer cannot give a hasty answer.
To sum up, both stability and flexibility is important in both establishing and performing the law, but itís hard to guarantee one property over another. Even in the specific law of anti-trust concerning the specific circumstance of Microsoft, itís too complex to give a eclectic answer in such a small essay. Let alone talking about the property of whole law.
This essay has been flagged for deletion because its primary issue is the large number of language errors. Unfortunately, we cannot address that issue here. While several errors in the essay could likely be discovered by careful proofreading, many are also errors of usage or grammatical errors. If you wish to undertake a review of English grammar, you may find Purdue University's writing site helpful.