Why is people's movement restricted?

I have watched a lot of news about rallying groups of people, may it for additional salary or to expose authority of their wrong doings. These rallies, in my opinion, is to get the sympathy of the masses and the support of the government for their causes. Of course, no rally can be without disadvantage. The place where the meeting was held will be left dirty and littered, and the area of demonstration needed to be closed off which will cause traffic throughout the day. Even if the cause of the demonstration is for the better, there are certain unpleasant things that will eventually happen, may it be expected or not. So the government issues permits and other paperwork for the organizations to be able to conduct such activities. This is a form of restriction to the movement of the people. I think that the government must execute restrictions to maintain peace and order in the society. If there are no laws to restrict people's actions, there would be chaos because people will want to do whatever they can think of. Certain limitations may be biased to the government but, generally, it is for the good of the people.

Why study globalization and development?

Globalization is one of the modern words I have heard of when I was still in grade school and I think it was around that time that the concept was starting to spread and be tried. There was this time that I was asked to write an essay about globalization and I barely have an idea about it. Because of that, I think that globalization and development should be taught in schools. There should be no place for ignorance specially in our world now. We need to know about what is happening not only in the scope of environment we see but also in the other parts of the country and of the world. It is somehow our responsibility to be aware. It is our obligation as a citizen of some place to be able to contribute to a macro level--a bigger level--in which a lot more people can benefit.

Can we move beyond conflict?

Conflict has been a part of history since the start of civilization. I learned in my history class that some governments of civilizations even gone to the extent of being broken or destroyed because of conflict. One example of this historical generalization is that of the Chinese dynasties wherein every dynasty, regardless of how long they have been the most powerful in the civilization, fell because of conflict in the government officials itself or because of barbarian invasions. These conflicts made up the history of every group of people. These may have been learning experiences or traumatic moments of their history, but nevertheless, it is part of history that we cannot control nor erase. In our modern times, conflict is already part of who we are. It may have helped or traumatized us. It is not easy to restore peace and stability after such experiences. Each conflict is situated uniquely when it comes to political, economic, social and cultural aspects. So there is no single theory that can straddle on all conflicts. I read about the example of North and South Korea. Their different ideologists helped widen their gap. The communist North and the capitalist South had long been nourishing a deeply entrenched hatred and tension and this is seen as something inevitable considering the situation they are in.

But what can we do to move on from this conflict? First approach is the confrontational approach. This is like a harder, fimer way of looking into how to solve conflict. It will use military power as an instrument of deterrence and pressure and economic sanctions. This had been not effective in the situation of North Korea because it does not take into account the interactive nature of conflicts. So instead of healing from within, it just tends to heighten the conflict. The second approach is the engagement approach. It opens the country to political, economic and cultural interactions that may help it to be more open to the ideas that will be beneficial for its people and will promote peace and order globally. With the prevention of military escalation, stability will be restored.

I think that the engagement approach will be more effective in the situation of North Korea because violence and the manifestation of power through the military is not always the way to restore peace and order. Maybe if the UN tried this approach, North Korea will soften its stand on its accumulation of nuclear power and may prevent any future wars.