Safety standards are important when building peoples’ homes. Who should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes – the government or the people who build the homes?

 

Safety standards are important when building peoples’ homes. Who should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes – the government or the people who build the homes?

In concurrent times, a school of thought believes that the safety norms for dwelling units should be implemented by the state, whereas other people profess that it should be done by the ones who undertake construction endeavors. 

To start with, a myriad of people propound that the government should take the initiative to look after the public and make necessary laws; it is imperative to implement such conventions as if some natural calamities strike, they will be the ones who will have to afford relief to the affected populace. Therefore, they should ensure that sufficient safeguards are adopted to provide a living place to the occupants. 

Furthermore, as the state is an ethical body with authority and resources to ensure strict compliance, everyone will follow up as they do not want to be penalized. Across all the major cities around the world, such as London, the state intervenes and enforces necessary safety codes and due to the fear of penalty, those residing in such locations embrace the norms without reluctance.

Nevertheless, some commentators believe that it should be those building homes making decisions as they are the ones who are actually doing the construction and know every detail about the building; from an emergency exit to the special features it holds. Apart from this, they are the ones who will get affected the most as they put all their efforts, time and energy to the construction of buildings, and in case of any mishap, they will have to bear the brunt financially and otherwise.

To conclude, although both sides hold substance, the state should be the one making and applying safety codes as  it is the official and powerful body and people will definitely follow those without questions.  

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

 As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Motorists? Why 

• It is them who need this service. They are in the minority and a majority suffers because of them. The traffic snarls and increased carbon footprint are a result of increased number of cars 

• This will have a direct impact on number of cars, such a levy will 

• people from buying cars 

• 
  

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax, toll tax and so on

• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity   

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Incrementing vehicles mandates maintenance and expansion of road networks that has precipitated a thought provoking discourse over who should be bearing the onus of this: some argue that it should be policy makers, while others put the burden on motorists. I will examine both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those vouching for the role of lawmakers in this endeavor argue that roads are meant for public good that benefit everyone, not just those plying personal vehicles. These facilitate the movement of goods and services, contributing to the overall economy by allowing businesses to function, enabling public transportation, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare and education. Since everyone in society benefits indirectly from a well-maintained road system, regimes should fund it using public funds. For instance, rural areas with fewer drivers might not generate enough revenue from driver fees to maintain their roadways, necessitating government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources. 

Nevertheless, those advocating for drivers covering the cost propose that it is only fair for them to pay for what they use. Increased usage leads to greater wear and tear on roads, meaning motorists directly contribute to the need of maintenance. Implementing road tolls is a potent way of ensuring a sustainable way to fund road repairs and expansion. Additionally, charging them for road use may encourage people to use public transportation, mitigating congestion and environmental damage. For example, in cities like London, congestion charges have been implemented to alleviate traffic snarls while generating revenues for road improvements. 

In my opinion, even though both the opinions are well-reasoned and are convincing, I feel this should be a joint responsibility as everyone benefits from the well-maintained infrastructure, wherein the state would reap economic benefits, and motorists  can obtain safer rides. 

Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain percentage of these jobs to be reserved for women?

Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain percentage  of these jobs to be reserved for women?

In contemporary times,  a school of thought believes that lawmakers  should  earmark some portion of the high level posts for women, whereas others do not support this. In the following paragraphs, I will analyze both the perspectives in detail. 

To start with, there are umpteen reasons that women deserve a definite percentage for high level jobs as they are equally gifted and can take ownership as effectively as men.  On top of that, they can make better decisions in some difficult situations and have a wider perspective due to being able to judge calmly and adopt measures accordingly.  For instance, Indira Nui changed the fortunes of a sick Pepsi, a cold drink giant, and with her leadership qualities, turned a loss making into a profit making organization. 

Moreover, this will help transform the views of society and let females earn their due and break the stereotype image since they will be  persuaded even by their families to take up these roles. Society will have broader perspectives and it will help in enhancing the economic output,  and ensure social progress .

However, in spite of having numerous benefits, some conservatives protest against this proposal since they harbor misconceptions that only men are better leaders and cannot be replaced by women. Also,  they fear that  if for some top, reserved for females, positions appropriate candidates are not found, it will cause  organizations  a great loss. Likewise, some also feel that reservation is an unfair policy and will not let deserving people get their deserving positions due this criteria.

To conclude, a particular percentage of high level posts should be fixed for females as they have adequate skills and good leadership qualities that match  the capabilities of males. This can help companies and society favorably.