The smaller man

Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.

The smaller man

Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.

Machiavelli's ends

Machiavelli is famous for his work, The Prince, which was written to advise the Medici family on how to successfully govern the city-state of Florence in Italy. It has been criticized by many as immoral and wrong, but many also see Machiavelli as having stated the inevitable, as ugly as it may be. He is also famous for his rhetorical style. The persuasive and forceful way he drives his points home is still studied today.
One of the big questions brought up by Machiavelli is, “Do the ends justify the means?” He says yes, they do, because sacrifices must be made in order for a Prince to progress in the world. This answer may suffice for those in power, but should it be put into practice today? One might say that the war in Iraq was a situation in which the administration thought that the ends would justify the means. The problem that is slowly being realized is that this particular ideology is not working in this ideological war. The civilians and terrorists are, in many cases, one and the same. Now, I’m not saying that all Iraqi’s are terrorists. I’m saying that Iraq used to be all citizens, but the more the US government bombs and kills, the more outraged Iraqi’s there are, and the more outraged Iraqi’s there are the more likely those who have lost everything will join with those who are fighting the invaders. This situation points to the flaw in the “ends justify the means” argument. If one can’t be 100% sure of what the ends will be, than the means cannot possibly be justified.
Another important idea Machiavelli brings up is about perception. He believes that the people’s perception of what is happening in their government is all that matters. The leader should do all that is necessary, ignoring morals and laws, to secure his power. As a citizen of the USA, this makes me wonder how much this happens everyday to me. I am constantly bombarded with images of freedom, liberty, patriotism, and a general urge by society to conform to the “hometown America” image. Is America really all cornfields and Chevy trucks and home cooked meals? Because I’ve never seen it. Americans are shown so much every day by the media, and are told so much by politicians, that most don’t realize that no one really lives in the “typical American family,” or has the average American life. In fact, most people when asked can’t even define freedom in their own words. It is very important to realize what is being fed to you. Next time you watch TV, or see a political speech really think: Is this person/advertisement appealing to my reality or my perception of it? You may be surprised.

Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was chosen to put the freedom of the new colonies into words. He was a man of great political influence, but more importantly, he was a man of eloquence. His writing style emancipated us from Britain. The Declaration of Independence is convincing and clear, making it seem unbiased. But, is it really devoid of all prejudices?
Throughout Jefferson’s summary of the crimes that “He” (King George III) committed against the country and its people, Jefferson makes a very strong argument against persecution through the use of stating mandatory rights with the phrases, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…” [paragraph 1]. However, how are slaves allotted these “Rights”? How could Jefferson have been a slave owner with these beliefs? One must question if Jefferson knew what would be the best (most convincing) on paper, yet harbored a more Philus (in terms of Cicero’s The Defense of Injustice) view where, “The most fortunate choice is…the perform injustice, if you can get away with it.” Also, women seem to be left out of the bulk of this piece. When people in general are referred to, women are implied, but this does not seem to be the case in this early patriarchal society (mindset). How do you feel women, slaves, and minorities in general are included in this declaration (or, why they were silently excluded)?
The Declaration of Independence was written to showcase the injustices of Britain and free the colonies, revolutionaries, from corruption using a Rousseau-based approach (as we talked about in class / V for Vendetta, etc.). However, who exactly is this document meant to free? As previously stated, The Declaration of Independence is directed more towards the freedom of men. This was interesting to me because Cady Stanton saw this same view and transformed Jefferson’s work into her own feminine version. This is such an influential piece, and it can all be related back to Rousseau. His (Rousseau’s) idea of radical change in government influenced the French Revolution and American Revolution, which many years later, again inspired Stanton’s radical idea of a women’s independence.

Give me liberty or Give me death

Rousseau takes some interesting positions in his work “The Origin of Civil Society” by looking back at the roots of how governments and societies wield their power. Rousseau believes that the current governments that we submit ourselves to take away our liberty and freedom without necessarily providing us with anything. He is perplexed with this submission that we enter into soon after our birth. Rousseau suggests that governments should be created in accordance to working to the advantage of the citizens rather than enslaving them.

I found Rousseau’s thoughts on slavery to be especially intriguing. He says that one cannot exchange their liberty for their life because one man or State should not have control of another man’s life. Also, in terms of prisoners of war, the State’s war is with another State, not the citizens. When a man acts as a defender of a State, he is giving up his liberty, but once he puts down his weapon, he becomes an individual again. As an individual, he is not an enemy of the State anymore. I think that this is not practiced in war very much today. This simplifies the rules of war to, in my opinion, quite reasonable guidelines. As long as a man is acting for the State, he is your enemy. But once he is acting for himself, he no longer is your enemy.

I thought Rousseau’s suggestion to Princes to take the land of an enemy State, but to leave the personal land of citizens untouched was in agreement with Machiavelli’s guidelines. Machiavelli says you should appear fair to your citizens, and to never touch a man’s woman or land. If you are taking over a State, you must consider the “enemy” citizens as already your people or they will not accept you as their new leader.

Though one gives up his liberty and land to join a State, he is not bound to such State. I found it especially interesting that one must join a State in order to solidify his ownership of his land. So you must give up your land in order to attain possession of it. This is rather paradoxical, but in joining a State, you are gaining the support of an army of people to help protect your land, though you do not have sole ownership of it any longer.

Can a man really give up his liberty for his life? It is true that without having life, you cannot have liberty anyways. But is a life without liberty worth living? Do we really even have liberty to exchange? Rousseau does make the point that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” I’m not sure that we know what true liberty is. I am wondering if anyone else has thoughts on what kind of liberty we can have in the world today. It is a value we hold dear as Americans, but I’m not sure that we even know what we are holding on to. Can one have true liberty while being part of a State?

Rousseau and the civilization of North America

Rousseau discusses some very interesting ideas about civil society, how it came to be, and what about it is truly important. Like Ross points out in his post, I also noticed the powerfulness of Rousseau’s first sentence of this essay. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This quote stands to act as thesis for the ideas the Rousseau explores in his writing. He goes on to discus the family unit as the oldest form of society. I was surprised to read Rousseau’s view on the family unit, since he suffered such a unique family situation himself, as discussed in the small biography in the text. I found this to be interesting to consider today since the traditional “family” structure is challenged and changing to fit more mixed families, half-siblings, and families in which the parents may be gay or straight. Therefore, it might be hard in today’s society to consider the family a model of political associations as Rousseau does.

Rousseau then spends a lot of time discussing Slavery. He states that every man is born free, and that no one but themselves has a right to dispose of their liberty. This, obviously, is not how slavery was implemented in our in our own country. Then, the children of slaves were considered born into the same slavery as their parents. Rousseau also uses his discussion on slavery to talk about war and what “rights” wartime entails dealing with slavery. Rousseau continues his essay to further discuss social society and the agreements man makes between himself and society.

The most interesting parts of this essay, for me, dealt with the civil sate and property. As I read this, I could not help but think about the Native Americans that were here in North America before the Europeans. I kept thinking about how much the “white man” imposed on the beliefs and way of life of the indigenous people that were here before they arrived. Rousseau states, “What a man loses as a result of the Social Contract is his natural liberty and his unqualified right to lay hands on all that tempts him, provided only that he can compass its possession. What he gains is civil liberty and the ownership of what belongs to him.” This quote, I think, is wholly contradictory to the way Native Americans view a sort of social contract. They do not see or agree with the very western view point we take on owning land or possessing things that really belong to the Earth, that therefore cannot be “owned” by any human.

We (the white Europeans) also violated the Right of “first occupancy” that Rousseau talks about, because humans were not the first occupants of North American land, and even if they were, the white man arrived even after the indigenous people.

“In order that the right of “first occupancy” may be legalized, the following conditions must be present. (1) There must be no one already living on the land in question. (2) A man must occupy only so much of it as is necessary for his subsistence. (3) He must take possession of it, not by empty ceremony, but by virtue of his intention to work and to cultivate it, for that, in the absence of legal title, along constitutes a claim which will be respected by others.”

Each of these ideas were violated by the white people. When the European white people came over to North America, none of these 3 conditions were present, nor were these ideas followed. It makes me wonder why, if Jean-Jacques Rousseau was so influential in his time, his ideas were not taken seriously and implemented into our own culture until it was too late for so many native people and the lands they lived on.

A Just Government

The last unit we covered was justice. We covered many influential writers including Thoreau and King. In this unit we have read two conflicting viewpoints on how a government should be run. These viewpoints were written by Machiavelli and Rousseau. The question I would like to consider is which, if either of them is just.

Machiavelli’s viewpoint is considered realistic and pragmatic while Rousseau’s ideas are considered idealistic. Their views on human nature are fundamentally different. Machiavelli thinks of people as “a sorry lot,” prone to lying, cheating, and breaking promises. Rousseau sees humans as possessing a certain value, as determined by “the natural order.”

In turn, Machiavelli and Rousseau have much different views on how people should be treated. Machiavelli believes that a prince must do whatever is necessary to control the people, even though it may mean not being a “good person.” He even says “a prince… cannot observe all those things by which men are considered good, for in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion.”(23) He believes, in short, the ends justify the means and people should be used in whatever way necessary for the greater good. In contrast Rousseau says that “to alienate another’s liberty is contrary to the natural order.” (22)

Rousseau states that people would gladly give up their individual rights if everyone else in the society did the same, all for the common good. He believes that if everyone was on the same level, and each gave up his rights for the other, there could be no abuse. Machiavelli on the other hand encourages a strong leader to wrench whatever they please from the people, so long as it is not the man’s property or his wife, for which he will not forgive the prince.

These differences in method are partially due to the different circumstances in which the two men lived. Machiavelli lived in a divided country full of city states which needed to defend themselves against ever present threats. Rousseau lived among republics and democratic governments. They both based their ideas on the ideals of the governments around them.

I think that a compromise between both sides of the spectrum, as highlighted by Machiavelli and Rousseau, are necessary for a government to function and be considered just. I think that justice and freedom should be emphasized, and for that, I believe that Rousseau is right that people must hand over some of their individual freedom to all so that all may be free. People hand over some of their freedom when they know it will not be abused, and it provides them with certain protections from the government. The leader of the government should be most concerned with accomplishing the will of his people. No one should be left out of the governmental process.

On the other hand, when the very order is threatened, Machiavelli has some very good insights. Faced with the very dissolution of the social order, a strong hand is needed. In times of war, people are often willing to give up more freedom in exchange for more protections. Even in this however, we must be careful. When one man takes all the power he is in danger of ignoring the will of the people in order to accomplish his own plans. Also, when all concept of morality is set aside to accomplish a goal, there is a danger of harming the very people you seek to protect. For example, many people believe that the Patriot Act while possibly protecting us from terrorists, violates our individual rights as citizens. The same can be said of the secret courts in Guantanamo Bay.

The different writers had many different ideas of what made a society just. Many of them agreed however, that people had to be treated more or less equally and afforded equal rights. While Rousseau emphasizes these rights, Machiavelli seems to support laying them aside for the good of a government in crisis. While a government in crisis requires a certain loss of freedom for the greater good, individual rights should still be protected if a society is to be considered just. “By any means necessary” can easily create means that are more costly than the worth of the ends achieved. Rousseau’s ideas, while more in tune with the individual’s need to be free, are very broad and difficult to apply practically. Somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints lies a truly just society.

Iraq Issues

After last Wednesday’s discussion of the ethics in determining whether or not the United States has the obligation of treating innocent civilians of Iraq with equal justice, I would like to present my thoughts on the subject.
In Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” there contains a segment in which viewers are shown the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. By doing so, the United States has taken from the Iraqi people the ability to live, Nussbaum’s number one central human capability. A question that arises from this conflict is: Is it the responsibility of the American military to fight it’s battles while keeping in mind the ten essential capabilities to good life? I think that yes, it is the right of the American military to protect the abilities of civilians from any country in any war. This is because I believe that the United States should treat the world as an equal society. To achieve social justice in global matters, the United States must give the capability for people all around the world the right to Nussbaum’s ten functions. This, however, does not absolutely rule out the justification of war. If in war, militaries can limit themselves only to the killing and destruction of purely military based units and structures, then civilians will always have the capability to live freely while having the ability to perform the ten necessary functions. This is keeping in mind the fact that a countries’ soldiers are fighting solely based on personal choice, rather than federal enforcement. This allows every person in the world the ability to choose not to risk his or her life in war, thus enabling everyone the ability of life. Therefore, I am arguing that all militaries, when fighting a war, should not justify the killing of civilians, due to the central foundation of similarity every human possess on this earth: the properties of a human being. All people should respect this similarity across the world, and therefore all races, religions, and nations should treat people equally. Consequently, if the United States eliminates the killing of innocent civilians, they will allow Iraqis the ability to live, Nussbaum’s first and foremost capability to what dictates a “good human life.”

Would Machiavelli be a good prince?

In Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince,” many interesting issues are presented—issues that could take pages and pages to thoroughly discuss. In short, Machiavelli puts forth a practical guide for princes on how to maintain power. Some of the over-arching ideas Machiavelli presents in his piece are that one, a prince should know how to wage war and succeed at it, know how to deceive and manipulate his subjects, and know how to be feared but not hated. Some argue that this piece is pessimistic while others argue that it is realistic. Either way, different leaders throughout the world and time have studied Machiavelli. In the very least, “The Qualities of the Prince” provokes thought.

Our discussion in class brought up some very interesting comments and ideas, but one that was not brought up that I have been thinking about is whether or not Machiavelli himself would make a good prince. The way in which he writes makes it sound as though Machiavelli really could pull off a role as a prince, but is being a prince really as simple as following an instruction manual? Machiavelli says that a good prince needs to be adept in war, yet what about peace negotiations or compromises? Machiavelli implies that a good prince must be tough, must be feared. But where do compassion and admiration come into play? And how much is experience worth? Or being able to read people, to communicate, to get people to want to follow you—not out of fear, but out of respect and veneration.

Personally I think that Machiavelli would not be able to pull off being a good prince. There is so much more to it than following instructions. Don’t get me wrong—there are some very relevant points that are brought up, and I think that everything in this piece should be taken into consideration. But should it be followed? Good leaders and princes have a passion to change what’s under their control for the better. They learn from experience and from mistakes, and even if they manipulate and deceive for the greater good, this is not their ultimate goal. Instead of acting as prince, I believe that Machiavelli would serve better as a prince’s advisor. He has some very good ideas, but I feel that his approach to such an important job is too pessimistic and mechanical to really be effective (at least in a positive way).

Jefferson and Equality

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and was partially inspired by Rousseau’s ideas of political equality of men and protecting certain fundamental rights. He believed all men had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He felt all men were created equal and should not be shied away from any of these inalienable rights. Throughout this document Jefferson explains how the King of Great Britain established tyranny over the states by listing the many causes of injuries he inflicted. Jefferson said if the government ever becomes destructive or deprives people of their rights, the people have a right to overthrow or abolish the current government system and institute another.

Overall I like Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence; I think he has many good points and ideas. One of the main statements that sticks in most people’s minds is that men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a very popular line. As a matter of fact there was a movie created with the title, The Pursuit of Happyness, which I have mentioned in a previous post. In this movie it just shows how Will Smith spends months trying to become a huge stock broker so he can live a wealthy life and no longer be in poverty. He takes many tests, sits in a classroom learning for hours with no pay, does favors for the big shots, and reads books so he can learn all the tricks and trades of the company. Nothing is handed to him, but he has the ability and opportunity to become this successful stock broker by working hard and striving to be the best. I believe all people should have the opportunity to be happy. They should be able to pursue their dreams, goals, or careers. Nobody should be allowed to take away that freedom as long as the person isn’t inflicting pain onto others or harming another.

Another thing about Jefferson I like is how he lists all the grievances against the King of Great Britain and his tyrant government. By doing this it shows the rights and opportunities people are being deprived of. For example, in time of peace he decided to keep armies, he cut off trade with all parts of the world, and he also imposed taxes with no consent. By doing this the King is not allowing people to live a fulfilled life, one of freedom and happiness. Jefferson feels in times like that, the people have the right to declare themselves a separate nation so they can receive all these equal rights as their fellow neighbors do. I agree with this. When laws and rules are laid down, people should have to follow them but if they are limiting them to certain freedoms they should have the right to overthrow that ruler or government. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people” (80). This is one of the quotes Jefferson uses towards the end of his piece. I feel it is very powerful to show his point that the people have the right to overthrow someone who does these things to them. All people are created equal the leaders or governors are no better then the people they rule over or govern; therefore they should not treat them any different and deprive them of any rights. All people should have the capabilities to succeed and be great if someone tries to stop them from doing so, they should be allowed to defend themselves and fight for their rights!

Jefferson and Gay Marriage

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous documents in the world. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, expressed the grievances, of his fellow citizens, about the way the British Crown was treating them. He opens his piece by stating that all men are created equally and they have rights that cannot be taken away from them. Jefferson goes on to list all of the ways the king has treated the colonies and their people. He mentions taxation without representation, the presence of troops in peaceful time and their actions, and denying people a trial by jury. These are things, that today we take for granted. Jefferson refers to the king as a tyrant, who has repeatedly injured his subjects and is not fit to rule them. The writing of this document signaled that start of the United States.

To relate Jefferson’s ideas to a contemporary issue, I want to use the line “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit if Happiness.” After reading this line, the topic of gay marriage came to my mind. At the time, Jefferson was writing, the men that he referred to were only white men. Eventually, this changed to include African Americans and others. Today, the U.S. prides itself on its citizens having many freedoms. This may be true but gays who wish to get married are being denied their pursuit of Happiness, which Jefferson said all men have. Why does a place that brags about the freedom of its people deny the freedom of marriage to a minority group? Some claim that allowing gays to marry will ruin the sacred institute of marriage. Others use their religious views that say marriage is to between a man and women. The separation of church and state should cause religious views to not be present when laws are being made, but this does not happen. People who are gay are no less human than people who are straight, so why are they being treated differently? They were created equal to all other men and they are not asking for a lot. They want the chance to live a life with a commitment that expresses their love for another. Married couples in the United States receive certain “benefits.” They have the right of inheritance if their spouse dies, the right to make medical decisions for their spouse in times of emergencies, and they can receive social security benefits. Do not all people who are spending the rest of their life with a partner deserve these rights? For some people the idea of gay marriage is out of the question, but what about having civil unions or partners benefits? These two things could allow people to have all the benefits that married couples do but without having the label of marriage. Is wanting equality, in modern America, such a horrible thing?

I found Jefferson’s writing to be very interesting because it is the basis on which our country was founded. Jefferson and the other founding fathers imagined a country where its people would be free from the rule of a tyrant. Many of the things that he lists are things that we take for granted, but across the world, and in some cases in the U.S., certain rights and equalities are still being fought for. The piece must be interpreted differently as the times changes. Times have changed to where being gay is not a crime, so why are they being treated as equals? Jefferson’s piece remains to be relevant today, and any piece of work that can still be looked to hundreds of years later for guidance, must contain some great ideas.

Rousseau's Idealism

Rousseau captivates the reader with the first line, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Unfortunately, he never adequately answers the question of why (at least not to my liking). I suppose this is in part due to the fact that he himself does not know the reasons for this contradiction.

Rousseau states that the oldest form of society is the family, with the father as ruler and children as his subjects. The children, like the people of the state, will relinquish their freedoms as long as it is to their benefit. Much of The Origin of Civil Society is written as a response to Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau believes that these two men are not thinking outside the box. In other words, they see the world as it is and do not look to improve it. This reminds me of Robert Kennedy quoting a George Bernard Shaw play, "You see things as they are and ask, why? I dream things as they never were and ask, why not?" Rousseau argues against slavery and against the use of force to acquire power. He believes that no man "has natural authority over his fellows" and that "to admit that Might makes Right is to reverse the process of effect and cause." Both of these stances were extremely radical for the 18th century, even during the Enlightenment.

While reading Rousseau, I find myself wondering how realistic he is. Sure it would be great if what he says is true, but I have major doubts about this. For instance, let's examine Rousseau's opening statement again: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." I agree with Rousseau that man is born relatively free yet he is surprisingly restricted. I would argue that this is not always because of some tyrannical dictator but more or less can be attributed to human nature. We highly value our so-called human rights but we are also willing to give them up because it is easy and convenient to do so.

I myself am not a country music fan but Kris Kristofferson has a song entitled "The Burden of Freedom". I do not know what the intended meaning of the song is but when I hear the title it reminds me that too much freedom isn't necessarily a good thing. Too much choice hurts us and makes us more willing to give up certain freedoms for passivity.

What is astounding about Rousseau's work is that despite his idealism, he was able to be as influential as the at times pragmatic Machiavelli, if not more so. The framers of our Constitution considered many of Rousseau's ideas, especially his thoughts on the social contract. If people join together and abandon claims of natural right, they will be free and the person with the most might will not be ruler. Following the general will of the people protects individuals from subordination to the interests of an empowered minority.

The Princes are Still Here

Machiavelli is the author of a very interesting piece of work. Written as a straightforward guide to a prince, The Qualities of the Prince is easy to read and understand. What is interesting is that different people find different meanings in his work. In class we discussed two possibilities: either Machiavelli is truly writing a guide for a prince, probably the Medici prince, or he was writing an angry satire about the world after being thrown in prison. Either way, his book was influential and accurate for the situation of a leader in his day.
After hearing the criticism of Machiavelli’s works in class and then in the blog, I wanted to respond with the idea that this royalty does exist today and that this shady behavior happens all the time. Of course, this discussion depends on how one interprets the modern political situation.

Machiavelli’s time was ruled by many princes who had armies and subjects. Now, there are few princes today and none in America, but I am not making a literal comparison. America is run by the president and congress from the most part, and I will concentrate on these two rulers. Even though the presidency is technically a higher position than a member of congress I will think of them all as hundreds of princes. These princes either have control of the military or have some influence in foreign policy; they also are elected by a group of people, congress members are representative of a small area full of subjects and the president is representative of usually half the United States as well as a certain political party. So, in a metaphorical sense, princes still exist in some way today.

I believe it is also true that these princes still use the same techniques observed by Machiavelli. Leaders today are obsessed with war. The world is constantly in some kind of battle; governments continually fund military, weapons and defense, development; Leaders are always looking for opportunities to gain powerful allies through treaties. War is also still the key thought of a leader because some leaders must fight for their position and must kill off their opposition and some leaders must win an election and must present their opponents as less worthy for the position. One may say that politics is war and that politicians are obsessed with it. Politicians must keep up their appearances, practice their speeches and poise, and find incriminating facts about their rivals.

One other thought, how often to politicians appear to be trustworthy and generous when running for office and then never take a stand on certain issues or pass burdensome tax laws on the people. What is most important is for a person to seem like the perfect candidate because it is difficult to take someone out of office simply because the public is unhappy with how he has kept his promises.

The Prince

I found Niccolo Machiavelli’s article, “The Qualities of the Prince” to be very interesting. His main point was on war and some of his other ideas go along with war. Machiavelli states that a prince should be all about “war, its institutions, and its discipline” to be a good leader. A prince should also be training constantly if he is not in a state of war. Machiavelli said there were two ways to train, “One by action, the by the mind.” To train by action, the prince should go out hunting and accustom his body to the hardships that nature can cause. A prince should also “learn the nature of the terrain, and know how mountains slope, how valleys open, how plains lie, and understand the nature of rivers and swamps.” When a prince knows many different terrains he can better defend his land and he can also adapt to other terrains he hasn’t seen yet. Then to train the mind a prince should read history and study great man and how they conducted themselves in wars. The prince should also understand their victories and defeats in those wars.

Machiavelli’s other points tie into war. One of his points dealt with being feared more then loved. One way to do this is to have a strong army. Other provinces won’t want to invade if they know they can’t win and the prince’s own people will not try anything either knowing the consequences. Another idea Machiavelli mentioned was don’t deprive your own people, plunder from others. The only way to plunder from others is to have a strong military. You need a lot of force to take from another province.

I agree with Machiavelli’s main point on having a strong military, however, it would not work as well today. Back then, a strong military was necessary for survival. Any province could be attacked without warning or if a province’s resources were declining then they would be forced to plunder from others. In today’s time, a strong military is still essential to defend your country; however, it is not used to plunder other countries daily. The president doesn’t go out hunting and learning the landscapes to better his military to gain power from the people. He tries to help the people directly and provide them their rights and freedoms to stay in power. Also, today’s presidents want to be loved by their people not feared. If people were afraid of the president, then the president would lose his power.

I found the overall article interesting because the way things have changed over the last 400-500 years. Instead of providing a strong military to gain power and respect from the people like princes did, presidents now try to provide equal rights and opportunities to the people to stay in power. A president’s power is limited while a prince’s power can last a long time if he is good at war and perceived as a great leader by his people. Also the aspect of plundering is different. A province would plunder from another province if they wanted to and had a good army, but countries nowadays trade when they need something from another country. Imagine if there was a war between two countries every time they need something. The world would be chaos.

"Machiavellian" Leaders

As I was reading Machiavelli, I was thinking about whether it would be possible for leaders in our country to follow his advice. While Machiavelli’s argument made sense for a prince, it would be hard to implement his ideas into our society. Our government is fundamentally different from the city states of 16th century Italy. Our leaders do not gain control through war. This makes some parts of Machiavelli’s argument much less relevant. For instance, Machiavelli says that a prince must not “have any profession aside from war, its institution, and its discipline.” Today, the president must be concerned with many other things. A president needs to understand war, but he does not need to fight wars to gain or keep power. Machiavelli also says that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved. That may be true when power is a result of war and rebellion, but not in a democracy. If a politician does nothing but frighten or threaten people, it is unlikely that he or she will get elected.

Aside from this, I think that a leader in our country could strive to be what Machiavelli recommends in the section “How a Prince Should Keep His Word.” I know I’ve read the seen “Machiavellian” used to describe certain policies or actions. “Machiavellian” is defined as, “cunning and unscrupulous, using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve a desired goal, especially in politics.” It’s not unreasonable to think that politician today could do that. After all, as Machiavelli says, it is only necessary to appear merciful, faithful, humane, and religious. He believes that people are easily deceived and will forget when leaders lie and manipulate.

The only problem with this is that today our leaders receive so much media attention. If a leader has lied to the public, the media will probably not let you forget. Our president is constantly under public scrutiny. If he even mispronounces a word in a speech, it could be all over the internet. If he lied or manipulated people and it was found out, it would be everywhere in the news and newspapers. Every little bit of information we find out about people affects our perception of them. In Machiavelli’s time, people would know about their prince mostly by word of mouth. Because of this, they would probably only hear about negative things that would potentially result in serious problems for the people. It seems that the media would make it more difficult for leaders to lie and manipulate and not be “found out.” A president could be a less little than merciful, faithful, etc, but not much worse. It seems like somehow people would know if the president was a great hypocrite and liar. Aren’t there are too many people involved in the government and media for a leader to continually deceive everyone? I wouldn’t say it’s impossible—but it certainly seems difficult. Or maybe I’d just prefer not to be as cynical as Machiavelli.

CAPPS II

Here is some information about CAPPS II, which I mentioned in class today. The following quote is from this website. The ACLU also has good information about the program, which was shut down in 2004 and replaced with a similar program.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced plans to implement
CAPPS II, a controversial passenger profiling and surveillance system that would
require you to give your birth date, home phone number, and home address before
you can board a U.S. flight. Under CAPPS II, travel authorities would check
these and other personal details against the information collected in government
and commercial databases, then "tag" you with a color-coded score indicating the
level of security risk that you appear to pose. Based on your assigned
color/score, you could be detained, interrogated or made subject to additional
searches. If you are tagged with the wrong color/score, you could be
prohibited from flying.

First of all, this system doesn't make us any safer and it is a complete breach of privacy since they are ranking people based off of information that is never made public, information that may not even be accurate.

Last Friday's Discussion

*The capability to an education*

One thing we were talking about last Friday was the capability of receiving an education. A few questions asked were would we be less human without one and how effective is our education system? When we were discussing this it made me think of the movie Pursuit of Happyness. In the movie Will Smith tells his son to never let anyone tell him he can't be something he wants to be. I feel an education is important but it is one's decision whether to receive it. In another part of the movie Will Smith is walking down the street and sees people walk out of a stock brokerage building and they look happy and wealthy. He asks how he can get a job there and the guy says you have to be good with people and numbers. He then goes on to apply and completes a long drawn out process to receive the job. However, my point here is the highest education he had was his high school diploma. He was a smart man but he didn't have the college degree to show it. Therefore, I think people can do what they want with their life with or without an education, but they should definitely have the "capability" to receive a good education. It is up to them however, to take that opportunity. If someone wants to be something or achieve a certain goal all they really need in the mind frame to do so.


*Justice*

Laura asked what every one's definition of justice was so I thought I would share what I think it is. I think justice is everyone having the right to live a good life with all the basic needs and being able to do as they please as long as it is obeying the laws made by the government. If one chooses to work harder so they can have the material things as well they should be free to do so. I also feel the government should allow people their freedom but as the same time keep the area safe. If one breaks a law they should be punished but the punishment should be equivalent to the crime committed.

ok i realize that this is a little late, but this is in response to laura's (??? i think ???) question on what everyone else's definition of justice is and then chad having compared it to pornography.
This comment got me thinking about an extremely funny, well it was at the time, instance in a class where we were studying the 20's in a class... The teacher was discussing how fashion was revolutionized and everything and how women were suddenly flashing their ankles all over the place. A classmate declared it to be "amish porn." I realize that that could be terribly politically incorrect and everything but just stay with me here. I'm telling this story because chad said you know if its justice, kinda like if you know something is pornography. For example, in the memoirs of a geisha clip that we watched, the teacher told the girl to flash her wrist at the customers in order to give them a treat... at the time and in that culture, a wrist may have been the equivalent of tara reid's nipple slip at some award show... pretty shocking, but basically, no one really thought about it after a week... the pornography issue is different to everyone, dependent on culture and times and public opinion. This is exactly like justice... it's not clear cut, you never really can decide preset what is just and what isn't.

In some countries, it's perfectly fine for a man to get his hands chopped off for stealing whereas another finds it appalling and makes the man do community service. It all depends on the situation... the law may say that no one is allowed to have an abortion, but what happens when a woman is raped, is going to randomly be pregnant with quintuplets and at birth, the mother will die, no question... then is it ok for the mother to get an abortion? (Ok that was a bit extreme, but tryin to make a point here...) So in response to the question, there is no clear cut definition of justice for me, its all gray, not black and white. You can't pre-conceive everything. I know that laws do that, but that's what the courts are for... For murder, one gets life imprisonment, but when it's in self-defense, then they're ok even tho they technically killed someone. There's always an exception to the rule, even though there shouldn't be sometimes, such as where rapists and murderers go to jail for 2 months then get out on probation. And maybe some people believe that they have learned their lesson in that short amount of time and others believe that there are better things to do than jail. But that just shows that there is no clear cut definition of justice... there is an overall, broad sense of decency and what is right and wrong, but there is always that black sheep that thinks killing is ok, or that rape is ok or that stealing is ok. But most people will probably tell you that murder is wrong and that rape is wrong... but that is the general consensus. There is always a gray area where people are going to argue about it and where it is very hard to make a decision on it...

Quote of the Week

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-Buddha

last friday...

Following up with a few main points that both Kate and Chad made today in class. I would like to discuss sweatshops within the world. Not only within the United States (which I feel is unacceptable) but also within third world countries. As many of us know, almost all of our clothing items are made from sweatshop laborers. It is a rare find if we find pieces made within the country. There are many reasons for this continuing use of sweatshops. And the main reason includes Chad’s question in class, would we be willing to sacrifice items for the costs of clothing. The sacrifice would include small things like a new pair of shoes that are not necessary, or a meal at Olive Garden but it would also include very large items and luxuries. Would we be willing to sacrifice everyday luxuries that we hardly think twice about for an item of clothing made in the united states These sacrifices would be necessary to make because of the potential cost of American made items (assuming the worker would be paid at least minimum wage). For example, last week I bought a new pair of jeans from AE. The jeans costs me approximately $42.00, I know that fair paid laborers did not make these jeans. If fair paid laborers made them, I am assuming that they would at least cost me three times as much. Taking into consideration the minimum wage of $6.85 an hour, with the costs of factory fees (including electricity, heating, and water) and the profit margin for the company.
Though the point I am making may seem to be redundant and slightly harsh, it is something to take into consideration before one discusses sweatshops. I am not saying that sweatshop labor is acceptable, and the conditions are terrible but the economy would be largely affected (both the economy within the united states and the economies of countries that harbor sweat shops). The United States economy would be affected through like dominos; the cost of necessary items would increase, then the minimum wage would need to increase, and possibly the cost of living would also increase.
Though the sweatshops within third world countries are a terrible source of income, it is a source of income. Many people survive off of selling their crops or goods, women may weave within the small village, but other then agriculture a source of income is minimal. It is a very sad, but true statement. The sweatshops provide money for these families and citizens of third world countries. If the sweatshop were not prevalent, where would the income come from? Though sweatshops do provide an income and job for many citizens, the conditions do need to be improved.

response to kims poem

This poem is describes what can happen when unjustness is prevalent within an area. This specific area was a town but as we all know it’s prevalent within homes, local governments, towns, states, countries, counties, nations, providences, virtually injustice is everywhere. "First the alien, then the Jew... I did no more than you let me do."

This line specifically spoke to me because it describes the strength needed for the individual who is standing up against injustice. As we all know it is very hard to stand up against something that we know is wrong. It’s much easer said then it is done, especially if we are alone. Hopefully we all try, but I have learned it is one of the hardest things in life.
What if a person does not have the same beliefs that I hold? Should I take that into consideration while injustice is occurring? For example, the prejudice against Middle Eastern women? Their hair must be covered, they are not allowed to work at specific job sites, not allowed to wear specific clothing, and even in the mosque they must pray in a separate section from the men. Their lifestyle is rooted in those beliefs, is it wrong? Is it an injustice? Though I may feel that it is prejudice against women, the women of the culture may strongly disagree. When do we draw the line, of imposing our beliefs to someone else? Do we even draw a line at all?
Another example a little closer to home, it may be cliché but it was a personal experience and it will always remain in my mind. The other month, it was a Wednesday night approximately 6:00 pm; I was working at my previous job (I quit after this experience) Rite Aid Pharmacy. I was a Pharmaceutical Technician. This tall, beautiful, professional-looking, young woman walked in and asked me for the Plan B pill. At first I was confused because I had never sold such a pill before over-the-counter, she noticed my confusion and said “It’s the 72 hour/morning after pill”. Suddenly it clicked, “oh, hold on, let me ask the pharmacist…” I panicked. I didn’t know what to do; here I am in the position to sell a drug that does something that I am strongly against. Injustice was occurring before my eyes, and I was apart of it. Am I using the excuse that selling the drug was apart of my “duties”, technically it was. I could have refused to sell it, but at that point someone else within the pharmacy would’ve sold it to her. I would’ve passed my burden onto someone else. So there I stood, as she walked out with the pill in her hand, praying that there was not a baby inside of her.
I want to reiterate that all of you may not have the same beliefs as me, and you may feel that the story was stupid because as a woman she has the choice and I shouldn’t care. But, when is the point that I say her decision and the government (for legalizing abortion and the Plan B pill) are wrong? And I am right.

o my gosh!!! IT WORKED! IM BACK ON THE BLOG! :D yay :D

**ive been having troubles due to my email account and the internet but now.. now im able to be here :D yay! :D

Pelosi, Cady-Stanton, & Nussbaum

After reading and discussing Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” I find it interesting that Stanton had to fight the Seneca Falls Convention delegates tooth and nail over the issue of voting rights. Stanton’s basic idea/theme was that in order for equality to be achieved for both sexes, women should be able to elect legislators who would be favorable to their ideas and give them representation in the halls of the United States Congress. Stanton stated: “He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice” (paragraph 5). The fact that women did not achieve the right to vote for president until the election of 1920 means that presidents from Washington to Wilson were elected solely by males…and only white males until 1870. However, considering women did achieve the right to vote in the early 20th century, did not necessarily mean that women were given a much privilege in the legislative process. As Martha Nussbaum stated in her list of “human rights,” all individuals should have the right of affiliation, which she explained as the right for all to have the ability to be treated as an equal and be ranked just as valuable as others (paragraph 12).

While women have served as governors, representatives, and senators, they have not always had much sway or have been treated as equals, since they did not hold the keys to the high ranking positions like Speaker of the House, majority/minority leader positions, and president or vice president. Furthermore, many women politicians have not been helped by the media and have been mocked by pundits like Rush Limbaugh (“Femi-Nazis”) for their views and have been called “power-hungry” or “too opinionated.” Hillary Clinton was attacked for advocating universal healthcare in her husband’s administration and the new Speaker of the House, first female to hold the position, Nancy Pelosi, was called a “San Francisco Liberal” after the 2006 elections by those pundits like Limbaugh, which is then usually repeated by news reporters and anchors. However, when Pelosi took charge this past January, she indirectly attacked the notion that feminists are extreme liberals or out of touch with mainstream America in her “acceptance” speech:

"This is a historic moment - for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today, we have broken the marble ceiling."

Pelosi was clearly referencing the feminist movement and the fact that women have been working for equality and the ability to voice their concerns in the public arena just as Elizabeth Cady Stanton did at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Pelosi defined feminism in her own terms, “That all men and women are created equal,” and put the correct connotation on the term…that feminism is not anything scary, but simply means equality…equality that many, not just women, have fought for in the United States.

Hangman

The idea of taking action is important in justice. Thoreau and King both talked about the need for action. Thoreau also mentioned not obeying unjust laws. If a law is unjust, something should be done about it. Stanton took action in what she saw as injustice towards women. She met a lot of resistance, like King, but the resistance stopped neither one of them. Fighting for justice may not always be an easy thing, but it is the right thing. The idea that what can happen when one is willing to take action to stop an injustice reminded me of a poem that I read my freshmen year of high school. It is called The Hangman and it is written by Maurice Ogden.

Into our town the Hangman came. Smelling of gold and blood and flame and he paced our bricks with a diffident air and built his frame on the courthouse square
The scaffold stood by the courthouse side, Only as wide as the door was wide; A frame as tall, or little more, Than the capping sill of the courthouse door
And we wondered, whenever we had the time. Who the criminal, what the crime. That Hangman judged with the yellow twist of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
And innocent though we were, with dread, We passed those eyes of buckshot lead: Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he For whom you raise the gallows-tree?"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye, And he gave us a riddle instead of reply: "He who serves me best," said he, "Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree."
And he stepped down. and laid his hand On a man who came from another land And we breathed again, for another's grief At the Hangman's hand was our relief
And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn By tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone. So we gave him way, and no one spoke. Out of respect for his Hangman's cloak.
The next day's sun looked mildly down On roof and street in our quiet town And stark and black in the morning air, The gallows-tree on the courthouse square.
And the Hangman stood at his usual stand With the yellow hemp in his busy hand; With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike And his air so knowing and business like.
And we cried, "Hangman, have you not done Yesterday. with the alien one?" Then we fell silent, and stood amazed, "Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."
He laughed a laugh as he looked at us: "...Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss To hang one man? That's a thing I do To stretch a rope when the rope is new."
Then one cried "Murder!" One cried "Shame!" And into our midst the Hangman came To that man's place. "Do you hold," said he, "with him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"
And he laid his hand on that one's arm. And we shrank back in quick alarm, And we gave him way, and no one spoke Out of fear of his Hangman's cloak.
That night we saw with dread surprise The Hangman's scaffold had grown in size. Fed by the blood beneath the chute The gallows-tree had taken root;
Now as wide, or a little more, Than the steps that led to the courthouse door, As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall, Halfway up on the courthouse wall.
The third he took-we had all heard tell Was a user and infidel, and "What," said the Hangman "have you to do With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"
And we cried out, "Is this one he Who has served you well and faithfully?" The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme to try the strength of the gallows-beam."
The fourth man's dark, accusing song Had scratched out comfort hard and long; And what concern, he gave us back. "Have you for the doomed--the doomed and black?"
The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again, "Hangman, Hangman, is this the last?" "It's a trick," he said. "that we hangmen know For easing the trap when the trap springs slow.""
And so we ceased, and asked no more, As the Hangman tallied his bloody score: And sun by sun, and night by night, The gallows grew to monstrous height.
The wings of the scaffold opened wide Till they covered the square from side to side: And the monster cross-beam, looking down. Cast its shadow across the town.
Then through the town the Hangman came And called in the empty streets my name- And I looked at the gallows soaring tall And thought, "There is no one left at all
For hanging." And so he calls to me To help pull down the gallows-tree. And I went out with right good hope To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.
He smiled at me as I came down To the courthouse square through the silent town. And supple and stretched in his busy hand Was the yellow twist of the strand.
And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap And it sprang down with a ready snap And then with a smile of awful command He laid his hand upon my hand.
"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then. "That your scaffold was built for other men... And I no henchman of yours," I cried, "You lied to me. Hangman. foully lied!"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye, "Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I. For I answered straight and I told you true" The scaffold was raised for none but you.
For who has served me more faithfully Then you with your coward's hope?" said he, "And where are the others that might have stood Side by your side in the common good?,"
"Dead," I whispered, and sadly "Murdered," the Hangman corrected me: "First the alien, then the Jew... I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky. None had stood so alone as I And the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there Cried "Stay!" for me in the empty square

I think this poem does an excellent job showing what can happen when people sit back and do nothing. When society lets one injustice occur, it will led to more and more until it is stopped. The speaker of the poem never once spoke out against the hangman. He simply let the hangman keep doing his work. That is the danger of doing nothing.

Stanton

The article written by Stanton struck me as very interesting since we are discussing some of the same issues in my women’s studies class that Stanton brought up so long ago. The issue of the right to vote was obviously resolved, but from some of the videos from the presentation on Monday, it was easy to see that many people think all of women’s issues are now resolved and do not need any improving. I thought this was interesting because I also never realized what women in other countries, and even in the U.S. to an extent, are still having to go through. One of the things here that I realized still needs a lot of work is peoples’ perceptions of what it means to be a feminist. Many people associate the term feminist with negative things such as angry women, women trying to overpower men and that all feminists are lesbians. Some of the men in America seem to think that women aren’t oppressed anymore simply because they have the right to vote and can go out and get jobs. Today, it is not even noticed how frequently women are subjected to being objectified in the media and in magazines and ads. If you go through a magazine right now, try to find how many times there are women that are related to objects, especially sex objects. I guarantee you will find many connections between what Stanton was saying and how women are still seen now.
One of the most shocking things in the videos was how women were not willing to call themselves feminist just because of others’ thoughts about it. In third world countries, if you asked someone what it meant to be a feminist, I bet many of them would not even know. Many women there are still oppressed, have no choice in many of their daily activities and are also being raped and beaten during wars. These women have no choice to be a feminist or not like we do. I think that it is hard for us as Americans to relate to this because many of us barely ever see these things or know that they are still going on in the world. We also talked a lot about religion and how it plays a role in women’s rights. Some use religion as a way to justify the oppression of women, like the man in the video that referenced the bible. I feel like that is the exact opposite of what religion is about. Many times we are told to love one another and treat each other as equals, yet some men still use the bible as justification for treating women as inferiors. One of the things that I wanted to express which I think plays a part in how you view women’s rights is the way that you are raised. It could even tie back into the religion thing; whether or not someone was raised in a religious environment or not has an effect. One of the best examples that I can give of this is about my boyfriend. He was raised only by his mom who at the time was a deputy sheriff (which was brought up in class to be the “man’s” job). By only having her there to raise him and show him how she does things, he has grown up to view women as a powerful force that can do anything they set their minds to, including the things that are said to be only for men to do. I guess the question raised with that is the nature vs. nurture thing. Are people programmed to view things the way that they do or do they get these ideas about women’s rights from their environment and the views put upon them by their rearing?

Stanton, Videos

I decided to post the videos I used in my presentation today in case anyone was interested in seeing them again. Also thought it might help in generating responses.

Are YOU a feminist? (women surveyed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcapO8EsKM8

Men survey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdbnzFUsXI

Women's Liberation Posters, 1960
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82jRd54pAKI

Contemporary Wisdom

As a few people have already posted on Cicero already, I would find it very redundant to again go over his main points. I would, however, like to go over a few thoughts I had while reading and from our class discussion. Cicero wrote this excerpt, “The Defense of Injustice,” in times so long ago, very creatively and beautifully. I find it phenomenal how prevalent many of his ideas still are in our modern day society. First of all, Cicero speaks on worker's rights. Philus presents, “Consider Lycurgus. He invented a series of admirably wise and sensible laws Yet he felt able to insist, all the same, that the lands of the rich should be cultivated by the poor as if they were slaves.” Kayt already pointed out in her presentation today the relationship of this quote to sweatshop workers, and how sweatshops are still prevalent today in the United States even. Just further on in Cicero’s piece, Philus continues, discussing the Voconian Law, which prevented women from receiving inheritances. Although we might not have laws which so much oppress women, there is still inequality for women in our country. Just take a look at the wage gap between the earnings of men and women. As discussed in class, Cicero also touches on the idea of animal rights. “The argument maintains that what a good and just man does is to give everyone his due. (One problem which arises in this connection is what, if anything, we are to grand dumb animals their due.” Still today, though, even in the United States, people disagree on what rights animals should be given. For example, cock fights are still legal in 2 states.
Cicero’s main argument, defining wisdom compared to justice, is also still something we deal with today.

“That, then, is the teaching of “wisdom,” that we should rule over as many subjects as possible, indulge in pleasures, hold on to power, be rulers and masters. But justice, on the other hand, demands that we should be merciful to all men, act in the interests of the entire human race, give everyone what they are entitled to, and never tamper with religious property of what belongs to the community or to private persons.”

I would encourage you to consider how people interpret this view of wisdom today. I think that in America, “wisdom” goes hand in hand with today’s big name capitalists and even celebrities. Those who follow what “wisdom” tells them are the ones in power, who are very wealthy, and indulge themselves in pleasures. Take for example Donald Trump, the high earning CEOs that we discussed with Reich’s essay, the celebrities, and the politicians. It is clear that injustice and wisdom are very prevalent in America today. Obviously, there are many connections that we can make between Cicero’s ideas and modern society. Taking this into consideration, I feel we, as college students who will be making a real impact on the world soon, should not forget the advice presented to us in the final sentence of Cicero’s essay, “As a consequence, even if he escapes the normal punishment for wrongdoing, he will suffer the penalties of the gravest possible sort.”

Stanton

According to her father, Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have been born a boy. It was not enough that she was brilliant because what mattered is that she would have excelled if she had been the “preferred” gender. This prejudice did not stop Stanton’s determination; rather, it fueled her fight in the war of the unjust treatment of the oppressed (minorities, women in general, etc.).
Written in the form at the Declaration of Independence, Stanton lets everyone knows what unjust laws will not be tolerated by a society that should reward and strive for justice and morality. With a twist on the historic words of Thomas Jefferson, “All men and women are created equal,” Stanton states her main point and sets the stage for her argument against injustice.
I found that the way Stanton used the famous words of a highly respected man of justice (Jefferson) in order to prove a point was very interesting and in correlation with how Cicero fought against injustice. Cicero used this approach in The Defense of Injustice by using Philus, a man esteemed for his pro-justice views, to make the argument in favor of injustice. This allows the people receiving the speech to open their minds and approach the idea being discussed with the unbiased and thorough examination to which such an important subject deserves. This type of speech affects me more than the written word or the straightforward approach. I would like to know how the class feels about this same subject. Do written or oral arguments move you the most? How about the straight forward versus indirect approach that Cicero and Stanton use? Which is more compelling, more meaningful and persuasive to you?
Cicero presents information in The Defense of Injustice that show women oppression in his time (Voconian Laws, etc.) This ties in to a more present day outlook with Stanton. The war against gender and race prejudice is just as important and just as prevalent as the war for independence was when our ancestors fought it in the past. Speaking of race tying in with gender, I would like to her some opinions on why Frederick Douglass attended Stanton’s speech at the Seneca Falls Convention. Through using the Declaration of Independence, Stanton makes a point that this is a problem and it will not go unnoticed. Minorities and the oppressed will have been fighting since before Cicero’s time and will continue to fight for their freedom from unjust treatment and ignorant prejudices.

Justice

So far we have seen a few different versions of what justice means. Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau, both believed that justice was not necessarily defined by law, but instead had to come froma persons moral or ethical beliefs. Rawls on the other hand thought that justice could only exist when a fair, unbiased original situation existed.
Everyone has a slighltly different definition of justice, and it also differs from culture to culture. We have seen that the writings of these three authors still have relevance in the modern world. However, are the writings practical or realistic? King and Thoreau advocate civil disobediance as a way of protest and making change. Unfortunately, such action is only effective when there are many people involved. They believed that sometimes citizens had to against the law in order to serve justice, but ther are not that many people in today's world that would actually do that.
Rawls on the other hand was highly idealistic. It is human nature to have biases and it is hardly realistic to believe that justice can extist while not giving advantages to some. It is just not how the world works.
Justice is a part of the nation's conscience, the idea of equality and fairness. In the end each person must make their own decisions about what is just. Together citizens create a belief in justice that is supposedly fitting for a democratic country.

Throwing off the shackles of complacency

In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King addresses the common misconception that “time heals all wounds.” People like to believe that just by sitting and waiting, things will improve. Quite the opposite is true. As King points out, “time itself is neutral,” but those who are working against justice seem to make better use of their time. (26.) Today in my Social Work class we watched a video on the evolution of racism in the United States. Racist movements are still alive and well. Though the Ku Klux Klan itself has lost membership and gone out of style, membership in many racist groups has been increasing, including among neo-nazis. People need to continue to fight for rights as the opposing side continues to fight against the rights so backsliding does not occur.

King says that he is not so upset at those who are outright racist as he is at those who are opposed to racism but do nothing about it. The people who accept the status quo and do nothing to further the causes they believe in are a bigger liability to him. For, as they say, the only condition for evil to continue is that the good man does nothing. This is true in all matters of injustice. If no one ever takes a stand against it, it will only continue to propagate and further its range. Injustice that is institutionalized usually has followers that attempt to keep it in place for their own advantage. In order for the injustice to be addressed, someone needs to speak out against it. As Thoreau says “It is not so important that many should be as good as you as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump.” (10) This means that just by setting a positive example a single person can make a huge difference by affecting the views of other people. How much more then if everyone who was opposed to a certain matter of injustice banded together for the common cause.

King saw the necessity of immediate action in the era he was living in. Even today, we cannot afford to wait for the “right time” to stand up for what we believe in. Things are not simply going to get better. If no one is actively fighting for justice, there is still probably someone fighting for injustice. The individual has more power than most imagine. People have the power to set an example for good, if only they can gather the courage to act in the present in order to build a better future.

Cicero

One of Philus's main points in Cicero's work, "The Defense of Injustice," and, I believe, the main argument given, is that the inconsistency of judicial systems throughout the world should lead us to believe that true justice doesn't really exist. He points out some of the laws that different renowned countries enforced that were in no way in agreement with each other. He also points out that it is wisdom, not justice, that makes individuals and states great.

Due to the writing style of this work, it is somewhat difficult to decipher Cicero's true beliefs. It is obvious that he is in favor of justice, though, as evidenced by the final paragraph. "There will not be different laws now and in the future. Instead there will be one single, everlasting, immutable law, which applies to all nations and all times." Through this, we can deduce that Cicero believes divine justice trumps any systems that man can dream up, and that we are therefore under a perfect and unchanging set of regulations. Personally, I agree with him, but I realize that the current world doesn’t believe that God and his omnipotence are worthy to be placed into law. Surely, some do, but the line between church and state mandates a secular set of laws by which non-believers can co-exist peacefully. I believe we can still conclude that Cicero approves of secular law, despite its inconsistencies. Indeed, in any society that doesn’t have 100% agreement on spiritual matters, it is wrong to ask for 100% compliance. Thus, we must have a way of governing action that relies on systems of the world rather than beliefs of the world. Secular law accomplishes that.

Another interesting point made by Phillus: “No country would not rather be an unjust master than a just slave.” In other words, we would all rather be the bully on the playground than the little kid being picked on. This relates to human nature as it applies to power. The end result is that a law-making body is by nature unjust due to the power which they have accrued. Any “justice” they attempt to enforce is merely thinly veiled exploitation of their subjects. Therefore, all laws are unjust and should not be followed. This argument does have some merit, as the corrupting nature of power is well known. However, the argument falls apart when it is considered that lawmakers should be subject to their own laws. As it is impossible for one to take advantage of himself for his own gain, it should be said that lawmakers would know this and refrain from using their power as a way to get more power.

Justice is relative and determined by those with power

I believe Scott summed up Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice adequately, so I will not spend much time on it. For introduction’s sake, however, a brief synopsis: In Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice,” the character Philus is prodded to argue a case for injustice (obviously this is contradictory to many practices). About halfway through his case, he makes the conclusion that the best option regarding injustice is to perform it “if you can get away with it.” This may lead one to believe that Cicero’s character Philus really does value injustice over justice, yet while he is making this case Philus’s rhetoric and examples ultimately prove the opposite—that he values justice over injustice. Moreover, his rhetoric illustrates what many hold to be important aspects of justice.

One point in this piece that I found I could relate to and connect to present day is Cicero’s idea that justice is relative and defined by those in charge. Cicero notes that “…the justice into which we are inquiring is not just something that naturally exists, but a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government.” This is so true. We talked in class about what justice meant, and not a single person could come up with a concrete definition. On top of that, not everyone could agree on what it even entails. We went through many examples and generally could not come up with a consensus about if the particular example was “just” or not. This is true in everyday life as well. Chris brought up the example of the man in Germany who asked for a willing person to be eaten. Both people were in agreement as to what was going to happen, but still people disagree if it was moral or not. Then comes the question about punishing this man. Is it just? He did break a law, but both men were in agreement. “Justice” is such an ambiguous and relative term—how could it “naturally exist” as Cicero mentioned?

Does anyone recall the Uruguayan rugby team that was stranded in the Andes Mountains when their plane crashed in 1972? The team was stranded in extremely cold and hostile conditions for 72 days and had to eat one of their dead companions for survival. Many people would have considered it unjust to punish the team for this act. What makes this different from the man in Germany? One could argue that the rugby team needed to eat for survival and that the person they ate was already dead. Yet in Germany, this act of cannibalism was consensual. Who determines if an act or punishment in response to an act is just or unjust if there are so many different circumstances and situations? Everything is relative.

Another aspect about this idea I agree with is the notion that justice is “a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government.” Let’s face it: whoever controls the means to enforce laws and punish people decides what is just and unjust. We as people may decide that the government or military is wrong in whatever they are doing—we may think it is unjust—but until we can step up and take over or control the means of enforcing and punishing people for disobeying “just” laws, we are only spectators, not creators. Take our government, for example. Many people believe that the death penalty is unjust for various reasons. But the death penalty is still being enforced and carried out. Why? Not because it is necessarily “just”—as mentioned before, justice is too relative to pinpoint—but because we do not control the means of enforcing or getting rid of the way in which “justice” is carried out. Out of a nation of millions of people, only a select few wield this kind of power—the power to determine what is “just” and “unjust.” In summary, justice is relative and those in power are the ones to determine what is just or not.

Civil Disobedience--Conscience vs. Opinion

In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau claims that people have a greater obligation to their conscience than to the government. People can express their beliefs through acts of non-violent protest, or civil disobedience. From the civil rights movement to current war protests, civil disobedience has been a common form of protest in the United States. Civil disobedience is usually considered acceptable, which may because the protests often stem from a person’s conscience and beliefs. When a protest seems unacceptable, it may because it appears to be based on an opinion.

I view conscience as an internal sense of right and wrong. Some people are more likely to respect a person who protests because they have strong beliefs about justice and morality. In paragraph 15 Thoreau says,

Action from principle, the perception and performance or right changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary and does not consist with anything which was. It not only divides states and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolic in him from the divine.

I think the situation can become confusing when a person is protesting because of their “opinions.” An opinion is a personal view of an issue, but it does not have the same effects as what Thoreau describes as “action from principle,” or conscience. Conscience might lead someone to refuse to pay taxes because they are morally opposed to what the tax supports; an opinion allow someone to say they won’t pay taxes because they don’t like their money being taken away. There’s a difference.

This can also go back to something we discussed in class--whether it is a good thing for people to follow their consciences. After all, it seems that some people’s consciences might tell them to perform unjust actions. It also could be that the unjust action results from their opinion, not their conscience. I think that if a person’s conscience tells them to “bad things,” he or she probably will not protest in the form of civil disobedience. They would be more likely to retaliate with another unjust action, than in a peaceful way. To Thoreau, civil disobedience may have been an inherently good thing. Also, in order for the action to truly be “civil disobedience,” it should also be somehow increasing public awareness of an issue. Saying, “I think drugs should be legal, so I’m going to smoke weed in my basement!” This is an example of acting from an opinion, because you are not showing how a law is unjust or immoral or trying to change it.

The problem is that it could very difficult to determine the true motivations of protests. You might not be able to if people are acting from their conscience or not. It would be even harder to tell if you are watching a news segment about a protest. The media could have distorted the actual intention of the civil disobedience. But that’s another issue entirely!

Consensus on conscience

Cicero gives his thoughts on justice in the form of a dialogue between two men, one of whom is charged to defend injustice. Cicero says that some law comes from God and some from men, which is why justice is viewed differently around the world, and the only universal justice will come from the law of God. He defines justice as an unnatural thing that is not a part of human nature and injustice as an opportunity for personal advancement. Cicero actually names injustice as basic common sense and wisdom because arguing that it is more beneficial than justice because justice comes from a state of weakness which is not desirable.

After reading this piece I think it is pretty easy to see that Cicero is in support of justice and against injustice. I say this because I am sometimes confused with an author assuming the opposite position when making his point and I think Cicero was fairly clear about his intention for writing. He begins by portraying the defense of injustice as a comical thing only for the sake of argument and ends his piece with a reminder that everyone is able to interpret the law and that everyone is susceptible to punishment from men and from God.

The above being said, Cicero still makes some interesting statements about the human attitude towards law. If people have everything to gain by disobeying laws, than it is a strong motivation to break them. Cicero claims that if a man may commit injustice and dodge the penalty, then he may claim power, wealth, and status with no cost, except what may pursue him out of his own conscience.

Here comes this conscience idea again; conscience always seems to be a factor in the creation and interpretation of justice. Cicero notes that most laws are created by people and are beyond even the laws given by God. So if man’s laws go beyond God’s laws, then the conscience must be a way that we decide how to obey these laws. There is a consensus between all of the authors we have read that people have a problem following their consciences and therefore create unjust laws from time to time: Thoreau believed that the government was corrupted, Rawls believed that human justice could be perfect if only a group of unbiased people, nearly impossible to come by in today’s world, could agree on beneficial laws, King believed that a majority could become oppressive out of prejudice, and Cicero believed that the benefits of injustice could cause someone to stray from their conscience. An article I read about the conscience, found here - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Ethics/conscience.htm, concluded that the conscience is generally a guide towards obeying the law of God and the law of man. The exception is when the law of man is unjust and disobeying is the only way to achieve justice.

What I am getting out of the Justice unit is that you should always follow the eternal, moral law of God and listen to your conscience because it will either lead you to follow the law or to make a just act of disobedience. This is the case only if your morals are favoring justice over personal advancement.

Just Fuss

In Rawls’ essay “A Theory of Justice,” he defines justice as “justice as fairness.” He basically says that in order for a community to be completely just as it makes and enforces laws, everyone in the community must agree to the rules being made. Also, they must wear a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls states, “Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.” Rawls also states that majority should not rule decisions because then only the majority will benefit. Rather, decisions should be arranged so that the bottom minority can benefit.
In reading this piece, I have found many flaws in his ideas. For instance, the rules that were made would have to constantly be revised with each new generation. For instance, a child may not have the same beliefs as his/her parent and therefore would not agree with every single law in the society. That person would either have to leave the society (because 100% agreement or toleration is required) or the rules would have to be changed. The next generation would have the possibility of being brainwashed because they would not know anything but what their parents knew. Therefore they have no freedom of choice to go against foundations that were already laid. I do not believe that a community can be healthy if there is no room for change or growth. Next, I believe that the idea of the “veil of ignorance” is nearly impossible. I do not see how anyone would be able to completely remove any kind of bias they may have in order to make important decisions. This would be even harder if there had to be an entire community of people that were capable of this task.
Rawls’ idea of benefiting the minority is similar to the modern issue of affirmative action. I believe that both of these ideas work in theory, but fall apart when put into action. There is just too much room for abuse of power and unfair treatment. The idea of affirmative action contradicts itself. Its goal is to not be discriminating, and yet it discriminates against the majority. The way I see it, race should just not play any factor when trying to choose someone for a position. It’s like the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Well, I have a dream that one day race will not matter when applying for a job, but rather the qualifications of that person; that universities will not have to worry about meeting a certain quota for giving out scholarships. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, there will always be a minority. However, I suppose that actions can be taken to try to balance out the distribution. For example, here is a graph of the distribution of wealth in the US in 2005.
I wonder what our country would look like if it looked more like this.

In the first chart, the top one fifth had most of the wealth, but what if most of it belonged to the middle class and the top and bottom had the least? What do you guys think about this?

The King's Letter

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” raises several interesting ideas. His first idea deals with time and how people must take action for progress. King said “… that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor: it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Also every time King tried to take action he was told to “wait” because his action is untimely. When is it ever a good time? King believes there will never be a good time to take action and justice has been delayed for too long. Another interesting idea King mentions is how to take nonviolent direct action. First collected information to show that there is an injustice; then try to negotiate a deal. If that fails, then the process of self-purification starts. The oppressed ask themselves if they are able to “endure the ordeal of jail” or “accept blows without retaliating” to prepare themselves for the next step, direct action. The goal of direct action is to make a “situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”
King had two great ideas that I would like to explore. I’ll start with King’s first idea on taking action and how untimely it is to people. I agreed with this point because to get something changed you have to go out and make it happen. If you sit around and do nothing then you can expect nothing in return, but if you take action then you can expect progress. The problem with taking action is the untimely factor though. There will never be a good time to take action. For example, you decide to take action against companies that pay their workers a very low wage. When would be a good time to protest? The company would complain about the protest being to sudden, no matter how long of a notice they had, and also how the protest is happening at a bad time so they should postpone it until a later date, never.
I also agree with King’s other idea on doing nonviolent direct action. It shows that you are obeying the law while protesting an unjust law. I believe this is the best way to take action because it is safe. There is no force involved; there are no riots or people holding weapons; there is just plenty of people coming together, protesting what they commonly feel is wrong. I believe that King’s four steps of direct action are still used today. For example, many people are against the war in Iraq and want the troops to come home. They have all the data and information they need; they tried to negotiate several times. Now they started to take direct action. We see direct action happening all the time, in marches and in protests. These people make plenty of sacrifices to protest what they believe in. People are willing to go to jail, lose their jobs, and spend plenty of their time protesting.
I found King’s letter to be very interesting and thoughtful. He explains everything in the letter slowly and carefully, with great detail to show his position and show respect for the reader. All of King’s main ideas were stated clearly and were given several paragraphs to analyze and explain further. King added many examples and quotes to the letter for further evidence. For example, he used quotes from Jesus, Amos, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Towards the end of the letter was the most interesting. King was apologizing for writing a long letter and taking the reader’s time. He was also asking for forgiveness if the letter overstates the truth and shows impatience. King shows that he tried his best and if there is anything wrong with the letter, then he is sorry. He wants to show that his intentions were not to be offensive, but to give a well thought-out reason for his purpose in Birmingham.