The cause and formation of human behaviour have always perplexed the academia ,and also aroused curiosity of the public mind. It’s been the core issue for law and sociology, which reflects upon the whole society and thus shapes our identity. Some people argue that outside powers are superior to people’s deliberation, while others believe in universal liberty of humanity. Though it’s true that people are not in complete control of their actions, I subscribe to the libertarian view that their own making is undeniably indispensable.

Humans are defined and confined by their surroundings, or as Karl Marx pointed out, the summerization of social relationships. Nevertheless, external forces don’t effect on humans as if the wind blows down leaves, yet set stage where human lead their lives, and that’s where mankind determination comes into place. In fact, if we observe closely, we would find forces tangle around people in a responsive manner particular to each person.  As Pascal wrote ”Humans are reeds that can think ”,with language, human beings are capable of deducing, imaging and acquiring wisdom. With technologies, people has greatly insulated themselves from natural harm, gaining more freedom. Such breakthroughs marked human’s distinction from other creatures and warranted inalienable rights of each individual.

People’s determination in their activities is not only existent but also substantial, since it’s persistent contrivance that lays an enduring foundation for civilizations. On one hand, rejecting behaviors as one’s making is dangerous, as one may thus escape accountability for all his wrongdoings and claim it’s devils outside that torments himself. Of course, there are unfortunate circumstances, named ”force majeure”, where arbitary factors and external power play a greater role. But this doesn’t override the nature of human effort, since it’s recognized by human awareness and responded with an array of conscious actions. On the other hand, it would be too weird to let some supernatural ‘Deity’ take the credit for all human achievements, as science has repeatedly proven to us. The enlightenment movement has revealed the importance of free will notion: before, farmers and merchants almost never dare to pursue advances, obeying the church and subjugated by overlords. When scholars lectured inherent dignity as individual beings, people gradually broke away from feudal restrictions and brought progress and faith in equality all over the world.

In a nutshell, for behavioral analyisis,  it’s more sensible to emphasize human behaviors than creation from complex lingering outside forces.

One Central Plaza store owner, in his letter to the editor, proposed the city should ban on annoying skateboarding there. After complaining about evident business decline and worsening environment, the author deduced that skateboarders should be blamed. Though I sympathize with his frustration, his argument is deeply flawed since several critical questions remain unanswered.

Firstly, we have to question the author’s description of current trends, which is fundamental to his argument. Are shoppers actually diminishing, or is this a misconception from fewer customers the author served? As to the claim of rising skateboarding popularity, is it accurate or is it a biased summary from experienced unhappy encounters with skateboarders? Moreover, how does the public perceive this problem? Numerous shopkeepers seem to agree with the author, yet it’s dubious whether the proposed prohibition would attain enough support when enforced. Perhaps proponents for skateboarders, such as sportswear shops, would act more aggressively than middle-aged owners who simply detest youngsters bustling.

In addition, we shall cast doubt on causality between ‘’disturbing visitors” and deteriorating reality. Probably the vicinity has already suffered from economic hardship and fleeing investments, which causes previous customers to move away. As a result, the surrounding neighbourhood becomes filled with low-income workers and even the homeless. What if it’s the wandering impoverished people instead of skateboarders that leads to degeneration of the Plaza? What if increasing vandalism is just the tip of the iceberg?  If so, the author’s ban seems frivolous.

What’s more, the proposal neglects discussion of other parties’ responsibilities, such as shopkeepers and the Plaza management authorities. On one hand, it’s reasonable to assume that inherent failure to maintain regular service turn away customers and plaza tenants, discouraging shops to pursue consumer satisfaction. On the other hand, though skateboarders are often implicitly pictured as unruly athletic juveniles, prone to wrongdoings like harassing ladies and breaking windows, does such a stereotype truly fit the situation here? If not, it’s undoubtedly futile to try reversing degradation by merely punishing scapegoats.

In brief, the owner’s proposal is somehow superficial clouded with personal concern and biased reasoning. City authorities should gather consensus and take attentive procedures to bring back a kempt and flourishing plaza rather than jumping into prohibitions with unwarranted cause.

For the lasting prosperity of Transopolis, this author proposes a worsening neighbourhood to be rebuilt into an industrial hub, while residents there are relocated in unoccupied dwellings nearby. While one may sympathize with eagerness for drastic renovations, the recommendation is deeply flawed for lack of crucial evidence.

The proposal of factory construction sounds plausible, citing the success of a similar renewal program ten years ago. But it is questionable whether it’s still applicable today. We do not know current trends of the economy. Suppose it has significantly deteriorated, causing investment to flee and labor forces to move out, building more factories seems unlikely to increase revenues. Besides, regarding the policy of reshaping the residential area for industrial purposes, how does it function in that comprehensive renewal plan? Is it important or doesn’t matter at all? Are there other factors that actually take greater credit for city’s rejuvenation? One might well assume that favorable tax policies led to revenue increase, or inteilligent surveillance contributed to decrease of reported crimes more effectively. Without rigorous review of the city’s development, it’s fairly logical to reject the plan’s potential as a lucartive incentive.  In this sense, the inference drawn from the recommendation doesn’t hold water.

Moreover, the author implies on the area’s resemblance to precedent, while its status and comparative significance remains obscure. If the area, located on the opposite side of the city, is not easily accessible and thus impacts on the vicinity very little, its problems are almost the last to be tackled. Moreover, the plan doesn’t present thorough consideration of the plan’s implications on other urban areas. As we can’t estimate the situation of municipal funding, one could speculate input on this particular area drains funding of basic services. In a word, the author needs to reconsider the priorities of the whole city before putting forward resolutions.

Besides, the recommendation puts forward an unwarranted expectation that unoccupied housing could swiftly become housing for relocation. How will demolition of apartments succeed? Remaining locals there may be reluctant to be relocated, as is the case of numerous urban reconstruction projects. Also, how would houses nearby, probably private properties, be transformed into condos for newcomers? In what way shall owners and tenants be reimbursed? How should the government gather universal consent to undergo this ardous process? We should look into statutory requirements and determine administerial burden. We shall research on local population and figure out motives for living in such a declining environment as well. They might seek lower rent and shorter commuting distance, listening to their misgivings would ensure smooth and satisfactory progress. If inhabitants in the region are willing to move,  we might agree that such relocation is possible.

In addition, the whole proposal neglects discussion for the feasibility of other solutions.  Assuming numerous factories situated in this city, pulling down deserted buildings and creating parks, instead of more new ones, would be more appealing to nature lovers. What’s more, lack of representation of public opinion downplays the ambitious proposal, as there’s no transparent dialogue and objective survey mentioned between the authorities and citizens. If  it attains general supporting consenus, its arguements would be more compelling.

To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing in presenting a cost-benefit analysis in a holistic manner and further evidence is needed to decide on concrete courses of action.

In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

(Modified )
Working ethics for leadership have been an important issue. The duration of one’s term in critical positions has also become a heated topic. From my perspective. in general cases, those in power ought to step down after five years.

Supporters of long-term leadership claim that under the continuous command of certain outstanding people, the stability and sustainability of the enterprise will remain. Those in charge already possess a high level of competence. With their longstanding service and unwavering course of career development, they would turn abundant experience into insight and courage in the face of impending challenges. They will also acquire a sense of belonging to it, thus maintaining unwavering loyalty and lofty aspirations for steady progress however kaleidoscopic circumstances are.

However, this has been proved wrong especially in modern society, where elders’authority and fedual allegiance have diminished. History has also shown us what’s more robust. Tito, the lifelong president of Yugaslavia has been an evident example. He fought against the fascists and built the new socialist federation, yet he failed to keep the political system secure and even-handed with concrete institutions. He pacified striking conflicts and suppressed those potential dissidents, maintaing unity with his own charisma. After his death, his country soon went into catastrophic turmoil.

In a holistic review of politics, it could be concluded that survival of an entity in any field-business,government-relies on these elements: progress, equity and accountability. Terms of office shouldn’t be so short that directors become powerless to push toward a single agenda. We can’t expect a president would instantly eliminate poverty, for it is quite complex to learn from precedents, discuss feasibility, attain universal support and oversee implementation. In fact, pundits in comparive politics have remarked that American presidents may have directed more structural changes instead of preparing for elections had their single term been one year longer.

While a term too long would also be prone to dictatorship and inefficiency, five years as the term of office would reinforce checks and balances, building transparency and dialogues among stakeholders . Malfeasance, nepotism and negligence of duties would face thorough inspection and receive severe punishment, since no permanent authority of particular persons is allowed. Besides, limited term of office bring incentive for wholehearted devotion of the employees. Owing to upward mobility, employees feel propelled to serve in the best interest of the institution.

In a nutshell, five years as the term is the most suitable and efficient to maintain the vitality and soundness of any institution. Since in the current society, five years is sufficient to witness substantial development while leaving space for future correction.