The Family, The Freedom, The Equality

As the aftermath of the Paris attacks continues tocover mass media, The United States has not changed their position on accepting Syrian refugees,but some of the states have. With the relocation of refugees becoming reality, states like Texas have declared that they will not be accepting refugees. In the article; Syrian Refugee Families Will Still Come to Texas, Despite Effort to Stop Them, by Vice News reporters explain the measures that Texas politicians have made in their attempt to keep the refugees out. The claim is that the refugees  raise "concerns and safety issues" to Texians. State politicians have went as far as to hold a hearing for an injunction on the resettlement of refugees, something that the US has deemed unconstitutional. As problematic as Texas is, they do question the role of the family in politics.

The people who are immigrating are families. These refugees are children, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers and yet states like Texas are looking at them as individuals. The neglect of the family coincides with Susan Okin's perspective about democracy needing the family to progress. The continuation to look at Syrian refugees as just refugees and not struggling families keeps freedom and equality from working on a political level and holds bak society in its entirety 

Proudhon vs. Rand

Proudhon's ideas were a revolt against communism, as it created a "stupid uniformity" among men, where men are meant to be free, active, and unsubmissive.  Communism requires obedience where men are meant to exercise their free will.  Communism is commonly thought of as being progressive, however, Proudhon's idea is arguably more progressive, considering its ability to free all man of chains.  Communism creates a necessity for man to labor for the good of the community rather than according to his own will.

Rand also revolted against communism, believing that it imprisoned the individual and forced him to act as a slave to the community.  Both seemed to agree that such a government would be restrictive and suffocating.  Rand would applaud Proudhon's assertion that "communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak."  However, Rand could not agree with the first part of the quote, that "property is the exploitation of the weak by the strong."  She argued that it was the right of the individual to be able to take ownership over their labor, and that the individual should be able to own property.

This is one difference between libertarianism and anarchism.  The libertarian advocates a small government, whereas the anarchist favors the abolishment of all government.  Rand's theory comes close to anarchism, but does nothing for the weaker in society.  She is willing to let the strong take over, based on the idea that the strong will produce more and therefore deserve more.  Proudhon doesn't seem to care as much about having so much incentive for production, but believes that it is up to the individual to find the will to produce.  This makes man freer, as it is easier for him to determine his own fate.  Rand's idea forces man to strive for property, while Proudhon seeks the abolishment of property all together.

As woman's rights gains more awareness in the modern world. The classic criticisms of the old and oppressive traditions are mixed with new beliefs emerging from the modern world. The idea of gender as well as family to some is now seen by many as just another means of oppression directed towards women. While the idea of a "family" has been seen as a means of oppression since the days when Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. News ideas have been added on and have been updated to better integrate with the modern world. The article also discusses how gender is a burden to the advancement of modern women's right issues. To some feminists, gender places a human into a predetermined role created by society. In these roles, women cannot escape the boundaries set in the roles they are expected to play in society. The article's main focus is discussing the different types of feminists observed in the world.

http://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/feminist-perspectives-on-the-family/

When looking at the different types of feminists and their arguments displayed in the article link displayed above. There are many similarities to the arguments seen in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Karl Marx argued against the institution of the family as it served as just another vessel to the continuation of property and succession. Marx touches less on the suffrage of women under the institution of the family set in place by bourgeois society. While what Karl Marx wrote is important, in reality to the issue of woman's rights. It simple is just some of the brick and mortar used in the construction of the federations of modern feminism we see today. Modern feminists have taken aspects of what Marx wrote and have transformed and altered it so that it can be used agains the issues seen in the modern world of today. While Marx argued for the abandonment of the family, some feminists to today wish to see the use of "gender" abolished as it simply impedes the rights and equality of woman. As the abolishment of "family" would help stop the practice of succession and property. The destruction the social construction of gender would help women break away from the restriction placed on them and expected of them. Also some feminists argue that once women are economically treated as equal can the advancement of woman's rights truly begin. While Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is influencial to aspects of the political world today, it would act as a useful part of the foundation of the advancement of woman's rights.

True Change

Recently in class we discussed the Black Lives Matter movement. This discussion lasted the entirety of class, being based on what the movement was and what it hoped to accomplish. The discussion also addressed what was going on at other college campuses around the country, specifically those involving evidence of racism, and what should the solutions include. The biggest problem the class conflicted about was how to solve the problem of racism without racism itself. For instance, designating a place for minorities to go on campus to discuss race issue includes racism as it is meant to be into place to hear issues of a specific group. Periodically, Mills was brought into the discussion to bring up hypotheticals in what he might think about to situation or what the solution should be. Mill is the author The Racial Contract, which goes into how the well known social contract is at its core, based on racism. This shows and has shown in our society as African Americans are and have been suppressed in almost all areas of life.      

  https://gotchasnuffles.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/picture-24.png

This is a link of then presidential candidate and now current President Barack Obama campaigning in 2008 on the platform that he is a “Change We Can Believe In”. This change was not only based on his political views but also on the fact that he was the first African American candidate to be nominated from either major political party. Many believed that by becoming elected there would a significant change is race relations, as America had just chosen an African American to its highest elected office. However, in recent years this has shown to not entirely be the case. With several murders seemingly based on race, Trayvon Martin, Freddie Grey, Michael Brown and many more, racism does still exist in America. Although it was thought that Obama’s election and presence in office would be a “change” and while it did make enormous strides politically, it is not the change we thought it was would be. The true change, relating to what Mills went into, is changing the cores of all the American people. We can not expect race relations to reside in one man and his accomplishments, as it does not fix the complete problem. What will fix the problem, is trying to change the core of the social contact. Obama showed that one person, even the most powerfull one of the country is not enough to do this. What will accomplish this is we the people, working together with one another, working against the basis of the core Mill describes in The Racial Contract. The problem is not one that can be fought by few or small groups, by one that needs to support and backing of all those that believe it in.

In "The Problem With Political Correctness", BJ Gallagher explains how the recent fad to jump to conclusions on someones opinion is harming the right to free speech. Particularly on college campuses, students have increasingly labeled piers and faculty racist, sexist and/or homophobic due to their opinions or support for historical figures and events. Gallagher explains how obtaining one of these labels can quickly destroy the reputation of someone and simultaneously lead to an expulsion or leave of absence. Due to the threat of being labeled racist or sexist, many have fear to voice their opinions on social justice issues that are becoming increasingly prevalent on college campuses and other institutions throughout America. Gallagher believes that this is hindering the discussions on diversity issues causing further tension between minorities and whites as well as the far right and the far left.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-gallagher/the-problem-political-correctness_b_2746663.html

In Charles Mills book The Racial Contract, Mills explains how social contracts are founded on racism and he believes that racism is at the base of institutions.I think Mills has a very compelling theory because if one were to look at the constitutions of most western countries (including the United States), one would find that the authors are predominantly white males who most likely saw minorities as lesser people. However, I do not believe that this should cause for the extermination of studying the texts that these men have created. Many students have been arguing for more diverse course work and more diverse symbols on campus. For example, students at the College of William and Mary are calling for the removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson, while students at Princeton want the name of Woodrow Wilson to be removed from all buildings. I do not believe that we should be forgetting the history of our country's Founding Fathers because most of them were racist. We cannot forget the extraordinary things that the white males of history have done due to the common ideology of earlier centuries. Should we forget the extraordinary authors and philosophers of the Enlightenment, which has been so essential to the ideology of our country? Should we remove the President who established the idea of nations coming together to form a peaceful and more perfect world with his Fourteen Points? I do not believe that it is right or even sane to remove the authors that have shaped classrooms for decades due to the heightened and soft sensitivity issues our generation has embraced. Furthermore, students and professors should not fear being labeled racist or sexist for wanting to discuss and teach such influential and remarkable works of literature, philosophy and history.

Crack Cocaine VS Powder Cocaine: Disparities shown in the Sentencing

The Fair Sentencing Act, which aims to reduce the disparity in sentencing between crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine had gained approve from the Congress and signed by President Obama. “This bill would help right a long-standing wrong by narrowing sentence disparities between those convicted of crack cocaine and powder.” Stated by President Obama. According to the statistics provided by US Sentencing figures, the Controlled Substances act established a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for a first-time trafficking offense involving only over 5 grams of crack cocaine, as opposed to 500 grams of powder cocaine. Furthermore, more than 79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were African American, whereas White and Hispanic only counts 10 percent respectively for the crack cocaine offender.This form of disparity can also be shown from the length of incarceration: 115-month average imprisonment for crack offenses versus an average of 87 months for powder cocaine offenses.This kind of variation directly ended up with African-Americans spending far more time in the prison system.


When we talk about racially division and discrimination, people usually blame it for individual’s imperfections and unconsciousnesses; few of them would look at the state and institutional structure as a whole. As Charles Mills revealed in his book The Racial Contract, racism was formed as the core of the social contract, racial problem is deep and institutional; society itself is structured on racism. Mills theory here had helped to explain why there has been a long appearance of mass incarceration in the United States that targeted specifically at African Americans. One reason was because of the disparities that deeply rooted within the legal system; African Americans endure more frequent and longer imprison compared to offenders of other races on average. Racism is still the de facto practice and ideology among political and economic institutions in the world. Moreover, the report also tells that it is so much harder to change the institutional racism, which requires more time and efforts. In order to vary the current situation, people need to begin from the bottom of the society and all the way up to the top— the houses and executive office; this also further added to the prevalence of racism  in the current world.


News Link:  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial-disparity-in-crack-sentencing

Colonial Mentality in Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a prosperous and multicultural city that once had colonized by Britain for more than 150 years before sovereignty was handed back to China in 1997.  However, according to Lahtoo, a reporter from The South China Morning Post, we can easily trace the marks of British colonization even at today’s  Hong Kong. He pointed out, Caucasian people have a larger advantage for finding jobs in Hong Kong compare to people of other races with the same qualification simply because of being “White”. Meanwhile, though Hong Kong’s motherland People’s Republic of China now is the second largest economy in the world: millions of mainland Chinese traveled to Hong Kong every year with incredibly strong purchasing power that contributed Hong Kong’s economy largely, nonetheless, Hong Kong people still are unwilling to call themselves Chinese and admit their Chinese identity. 

From Frantz Fanon’s book The Wretched of the Earth, we can find possible explanations for those scenarios that Lahtoo mentioned in his report. In an advanced society like Hong Kong, such obvious job inequalities based on employee’s races would not expect to happen. However, according to Lahtoo, Hong Kong people do not feel weird by that. Fanon states that Colonization caused indigenous people’s inferior status and Settler’s superior status in the social relations. Meanwhile, besides physical inferiority, indigenous people would also feel they are mentally inferior to the settlers; this mentality can be hardly washed away unless there is a violence clashed, in this way can liberation be truly gained. Fanon also states that violence is a cleansing force that is able to free  the natives from the inferiority  complex and from their despair and inaction. However, When we trace back to Hong Kong’s handover history, there was no sign of such a “cleansing power”. Both British and Chinese government agreed mutually through negotiations and talks. This would also give Hong Kong people the mindset that that Hong Kong is still not fully and forcefully liberated and humanized from the century-long Colonization.

Report Link: http://m.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1873833/white-worship-hong-kong-you-cant-end-it-if-you-refuse

The Reasons for the Deaths of Patriots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYmK19-d0U

In 2011, an operation took place that killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed over 3,000 American lives. After 9/11 the United States invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda leaders and their training camps. The United States still occupies Afghanistan and is still fighting the Taliban for complete control of the country. Many American lives have been lost due to this battle and for many years the American people were frustrated with the fact that the leader of Al Qaeda was still at large. When the United States finally killed the brutal terrorist in Pakistan. Obama's speech announced Bin Laden's death and Obama

Obama's speech announced Bin Laden's death and Obama explained how the deaths of all of America's fully deployed were not in vain. He also talked about how the families of those who were lost on 9/11 can rest easy knowing that the man who took away their family members has tasted American justice. This speech is comparable to Pericles Funeral Oration because Pericles is trying to explain to the people of Athens that we cannot allow the deaths of their loved ones be in vain. He tells his people to keep up the fight because the men that have died fighting for their country deserve the victory. Obama does the same thing in his speech by telling the people that we cannot allow the terrorists who are still at large around the world win. He explains how for now the American people can rest easy knowing that the face of evil has been killed, but the fight is not over. He says we must continue the fight against terrorism in order to avenge the deaths of our loved ones, and continue to protect our loved ones from further acts of terrorism. Pericles, Obama and other Leaders of nations throughout history need to make these speeches in times of war in order to keep the people in the fight, and to let them know why young men and women are fighting overseas.

Might is Right

In Thucydides' Melian Dialogue, Thucydides explains a debate between the Athenians and the Melians.  The Athenians tell the Melians that they will either invade Melos and take everyone prisoner, provided the Melians don't fight back, or they will kill everyone in Melos.  The Melians attempt to argue with the Athenians, and provide reasons why they should not do either of those things.  They give a few different arguments.  One argument is that Sparta is an ally of Melos, and Melos will call upon Sparta to save them from the Athenians.  The Athenians are not convinced, and say that Sparta will not come to save them.  Sparta will not waste their resources on Melos, as it would turn into a bigger mess for them than if they just let Melos go.  The Melians argue that the Athenians should not enslave or kill them because they have not done anything to provoke the Athenians.  It would not be right of Athens, and the other states around Athens will feel threatened if Athens invades.  The Melians argue that this will cause the other states to go to war against Athens, to protect themselves.  The Athenians main point throughout all of this is that they are mightier than Melos, and therefore have a right to do what they want.

The above cartoon illustrates this point that the Athenians made, a concept that Thucydides supported.  This is the concept of "might is right."  Calvin tries to make the point that ethics do not matter, that all that matters is who is mightier.  He says, as Athens does, that he will leave it up to others to discuss whether it is right.  Athens asserts that whether it is right is irrelevant, as they have more resources and are bigger.

Women love Machiavelli

In her post New York Time's opinion post, Emily V. Gordan discusses the natural phenomenon of competition that develops in the female world. In her article "Why Women Compete with Each Other," Emily relives her younger years as an adolescent girl trying to fight the stigma of being different while at the same time finding herself becoming of the catty nature of females. While she goes on to discuss how important it is for modern females to debunk the idea that women have to compete with each other, what she does not discuss is what is at the center of the phenomenon: the fight for power.

Women have been stigmatized into thinking that their can only be one woman in power at a time so when one shows promise of being different, of having the ability to be in power, we tear each other down. The "Sensational Six" (Gordan) suddenly becomes the Exceptional Enemies as they play on Machiavelli's ideas of power. Machiavelli believes that one should not form any relationships or allies unless one is wiling to give it up at any moment, and this is the ideology of women, So quick, we are to throw a friend "under the bus"in exchange of attention, recognition or for power. The power dynamics Machiavelli talks about is scene in the struggle for power between common day women. As we fight to gain recognition and power we presume acts of "cruelty" to those around us to make ourselves be seen as more appealing in any and every situation.

Power against power

One of the first people we looked at starting our unit on Power and Violence was Nicholas Machiavelli, author of the The Prince.  What first made him interesting was that he was the first author we had looked at that was not an actual philosopher. He regarded himself, and is now universally regarded as more of a thinker. The second aspect that made him interesting was learning that his book The Prince, was a shot towards to the Medici family. The family had previously ruled Florence for 60 continuous years, having just lost power as Machiavelli was beginning his education in the city. A couple years later, the family came back into power, taking control of Florence once again and ending its government structure as a Republic. Machiavelli responded to this takeover with The Prince, despite not being published until after his death. The book's main point was how leaders should gain power as well as how to maintain it. One example he gives is that any leaders must to strive to preserving the state, and the best way to do this is by preserving stability within the state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS09U73gib4

This is a link to rap star Tupac Shakurs last album in 1996. Tupac became so intrigued by Machiavelli and The Prince he would go on to later make the name his stage name. He was quoted in one of his interviews about the album saying “ We don't need no more rapper, we don't need no more basketball players, no more football players, we need more thinkers”. Tupac strongly believed, as he constantly expressed in the album, that the African American community in the United States was suppressed by law enforcement and the government. He believed that as an icon, it was his duty to gain power in order to fight the injustices the African American community was faced with. The first thing this comparison shows is how even though he was not a philosopher, his works was still relevant hundreds of years later. What makes this even more impressive is that it can be related and compared with the modern day society and the culture. While Tupac was, in his words, “at war with the police”, Machiavelli was fighting the monarchy imposed under the Medici family. The major difference in this however, is Tupac was fighting for more power, while Machiavelli was fighting to change power. Ultimately however, they both strived to fight the injustice present in their communities. In history, we often looked at people chasing power as evil, not only because of why they wanted it but also what they did to get it.  As the given examples shows, people may not always want to gain power in order to gain control over others, but rather to fight another source of power that is not shown responsibility.

Power through public speech

Donald Trump is currently the leading Republican presidential candidate in the polls for the 2016 election so far. Due to his speech's to his supporters. Because of his background and current profession. Donald Trump has been able to distance himself from the stereotypes of the common politician. The best way he does this is in his public speech's. He lacks the care for maintaining political correctness in his rallies. He says what he thinks. As his supporters say "Echoing what a lot of people feel and say." This speaking style helps portray that he is not a run of the mill politician who constantly watches and corrects everything they say so that they will not loss any possible voters. And because he is open in his speech's, his supporters and the public can feel a better connection with him than other politicians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html?_r=0

When you compare Donald Trump's speech's to Pericles Funeral Oration, T\the argument that power can be gained through speaking becomes stronger. Both Trump and Pericles rely on the beliefs and thoughts of the people. For Pericles it was that the people of Athens were unsure of what their soldiers had died for. Pericles used this to garner support for the war. That these soldiers had died for the greater good. that their deaths were purposeful in order to protect the Athen's way of life. And by changing the publics opinion and installing a sense of patriotism. He was able to gain power to continue the war. Trump is able to gain political power and support by appealing to the public. He is able to work of the public's fear of our current foreign and economic policies. And by echoing what his supporters are thinking and confirming he believes the same things in his speeches working about staying to true to what the public thinks. He is able to garner himself more support (Power) to continue to campaign against his opponents. Because both Pericles and Trump are able to appeal to the public, they are able to maintain and gain more power through public speaking.

Rousseau and Civil Disobedience

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/thoreau/civil.html

Civil Disobedience is an essay by Henry David Thoureau.  In it, he discusses the merits of disobeying society's rules.  He explains that it is necessary to disobey in some cases, as the community is not always right.  He does not believe that the majority is by necessity the wisest, because the simple fact that most people agree on something does not make it correct.  He cites slavery as a most excellent example of how the majority is not always correct, and how it is best to disobey when such injustices arise in a society.  He believed that there could be something better than democracy.

Rousseau was a major proponent of democracy.  It is Rousseau's belief that in a virtuous society that the minority will always be mistaken.  Thoureau seems to believe that no society can be so virtuous as to avoid making wrong decisions.  Rousseau does, however, say that it is necessary to incite revolutions when there are inequalities in the government.  It seems to me that it would be difficult to determine when to incite revolution if one is meant to be coerced into being free.  Essentially, obedience is freedom.  This is in direct contradiction to Thoureau's thesis that it is necessary to disobey the law sometimes in order to be free.

20 Years later: The Million Man March

Its been 20 years since the 1995 Million Man March in Washington DC and on Saturday thousands of Americans reconvened at the Washington memorial to celebrate its 20th anniversary. With Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker, the topic was clear: "America has no future for you or for me. She can't make a future for herself, much less a future for us" (Grinberg). While many were there to discuss the social unrest and lack of justice that plagues the black community, an underlining theme of freedom swept through the crowd.

What is justice without freedom? Nothing. It seems that for the average Black person in America, Rousseau is right:"Man is born free, and everywhere else he is in chains." The black community has been opressed and stressed since being dragged halfway across the world and even after fighting for their own freedom from the chains of slavery, they are still under the socioeconomic and racist chains of White America. The constant degradation, mass incarceration and killing of black men and women calls for the freedom of black america from the chains that they still find around their necks even in "modern" America. This recent fight for freedom ties with the chant for "Justice or Else!". While the or else part is unanswered the fight for justice, freedom and equality has been sparked again and the conversation of who holds the right in the fight for freedom and liberty is brought round table.

Whose Freedom?

The current discussion on Senate Bill 11, which would allow for concealed carry license owners to bring their concealed firearms into college campus buildings in the state of Texas, brings forward two differing ideas of freedom. While laws already allow for concealed carry firearms to be carried on campuses for the past twenty years, the new law, set to go into effect on August 1, 2016, would allow them inside buildings. The bill states that only owners of a concealed carry license who are twenty-one years of age will permitted to carry firearms. The supporters of the bill argue that this will help individuals protect themselves and others in campus buildings in the event of an armed attack or other emergency situation. Opponents of the bill argue whether it is right for firearms to be allowed into the classroom. One of the strongest arguments against the bill is the effect it will have on the right of free speech in Texas college classrooms. Because of the amount of discussion that occurs in classrooms, many controversial topics are discussed. If certain certain individuals are permitted to carry a concealed weapon into class, it could lead to a situation which stifles discussion, as many might be afraid to argue with a person chatting a weapon.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/texas-campus-carry-law/

This controversy over the effect of the bill in the classroom can be connected to Rousseau’s ideas of both civil and natural freedom that we went over in class. The supporters of the bill are looking out for the ability of individuals to protect themselves, just as a personal freedom in a state of nature would be concerned only with the needs or desires of an individual. Those who argue against the bill are thinking about the greater good of society and not just about what is best for specific individuals. In their opinion, the right of everyone to free speech is a more important one than the right to be armed in public spaces. In a state of nature one can do what one wants and thinks about themselves and their freedom, but in a civil society, you have the same freedom as others in you society. The laws that affect your freedom are meant to help the whole community rather than just the individual. A healthy civil society is able to balance the freedom of individuals with the larger freedoms of the society itself.

Freedom

http://41.media.tumblr.com/bd91c8af77b7030812684995efdcf191/tumblr_nsqh7diiWs1qggdoyo1_500.jpg

This is a photo from Star War Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. In this photo, Senator Padmé Amidala sits as The Republic is taken over by the Sith Lord, as he declares martial law. By doing this, he has effectively turned the then democracy into an empire dictatorship. During this speech, Padmé remarks the famous quotes, “So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause”. This became a famous quote in the series as well as in our everyday life as it has been referred to during views of major decisions. The quote implies that people may not know the actual implications of what is going on, and just because something sounds appealing and attractive at the time doesn't mean it actually is. All the people in the theater during the speech were in their positions as part of a democracy. They were meant to impose democracy and maintain it throughout their term. However, as they supported what then turned out to be the end of democracy, this did not turn out the be the case.

This scene, in addition to this quote relates to what our class has learned and studied about Rousseau. In class we were presented with several quotes including “All ran toward their chains, believing they were securing their freedom”. This is very similar to the described scene as it shows that people will approve and be attracted something that sounds appealing but is in no way is what it seems. “Ran towards chains” is not at all what freedom is supposed to be or what people should what. However, when presented in a way in which it seems that the act is in the name of freedom, people don't disapprove. This is the same with “liberty dies in thunderous applause” as people are supporting what they think is democracy, when in reality it is in fact to opposite. Another quote we looked at by Rousseau was “Citizens let themselves be oppressed, only insofar as being carried away by blind ambition, and looking more beneath then above themselves, domination becomes more previous to them than independence, and they consent to bear chains so that they in turn can give them to others”. This again shows the same point, as people believe that they are all free by having restrictions placed upon them. These two examples along with the photo show that democracy, liberty, and freedom, can not be attended through restriction.    

  

Christopher McCandless was a man who wanted badly to give up all material goods and live in the wild. The book Into the Wild depicts McCandless journey of giving up his standard American life to take on the wild. The book depicts how he lives off of nature, hunting his own food, but mainly has to pick berries for food. McCandless loses a lot of weight and eventually dies of starvation because he is unable to successfully hunt food.
Rousseau argues that man in the state of nature is faster stronger and happier. He believes they would be stronger and faster because they have to acquire their own food and build their own shelters. He believes they would be happier because they have not been affected by material goods and don't have to worry about other people trying to take advantage of them. Rousseau argues that when men come together and learn how to enhance their lives they have become more evil than when they are solitary. In Rousseau's state of nature men are stronger men, but looking at the story of McCandless it seems to be the opposite. McCandless fails trying to live in the state of nature because he is unable to effectively gather food for himself. McCandless lost extreme weight, while trying to live on his own. Instead of McCandless getting faster and stronger, he got physically weaker. It seems that men not living in the state of nature will be stronger because they are able to acquire food easily and depending on their standard of living will be able to become stronger. McCandless died in the state of nature because of his lack of strength. Therefore, Rousseau's argument that men are stronger and faster in the state of nature is not accurate.

Let kids be kids

As reported by a recent study published in the Journal of Family Psychology, kids who were giving too much heavy work and caregiving roles without letting them simply be a carefree child in their childhood, tends to be less sensitive towards their own children’s needs too. Professor Amy K. Nuttall from the Michigan State University said,“People who raised up by giving too many stresses and burdens, would feel confused when they educate their own children in the scope of understanding children’s needs and expectations. According to an online parenting blog named let kids be kids, Childhood is a time marked by playing, making friendships, getting messy, creativity and exploration. It then  stated that, "It also happens quite quickly. Lets get back to basics and bring back childhood!" 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in my opinion, had expressed a lot similar thinkings related to the study above. In Rousseau’s mind, people in the state of nature, on the contrary to what Hobbes once stated is vicious, nasty, and wicked, is actually happier, stronger, and more virtuous; they are not constrained by the repressive apparatus and factitious needs of the society. Kids in their childhood are just like people in the state of nature, they are happy, carefree, and easy to be satisfied. However, once they got chained and restrained by the pressure of real life and the lessons that their parents exerted on, they would lose the valuable peacefulness that the childhood granted to them and gradually became less sensible towards their own children when they take on the role as parents. The whole scenario here is just like what Rousseau said, people once get civilized and well informed of the real world, they would tend to be less happy and limited by the artificial needs of the society. 

Link:http://www.parentherald.com/articles/10622/20150930/heres-why-you-should-let-kids-be-kids.htm 

For What You Believe In

This photo is from season 3 episode 6 of popular Netflix show House of Cards. In the photo, First Lady Claire Underwood is speaking with the recently imprisoned Michael Korrigan during her trip to Russia. Korrigan, a traveling American citizen, was sent to prison following his publicized gay rights activism remarks of gay mistreatment in Russia. Although he was offered release on the condition that he retract his previous statement, Korrigan refused, thus prompting his indefinite sentence. During this conversation, Korrigan contemplates how far he will go to suppose his cause. He suggest that he hopes he would be able to die for it, however questions if he would be strong enough to take it that far. Claire offers her husband’s help in granting his release, however this is again refused. Korrigan states he will not voluntarily leave prison until the Russian government address his cause. The following morning, he is found hanging from the window, having committed suicide sometime throughout the night. This dismisses the question of his strength for his cause, as he knows his suicide will not only draw great amounts of attention but also put vast amounts of pressure on the Russian government.   

One of the first discussions we had as a class was over Socrates imprisonment. This included questions such as “Is Socrates right to stay in jail? Could Crito have done a better job with his argument?”. Socrates faced an almost identical situation to Michael Korrigan in House of Cards. Both were sent to prison over fighting for their respective cause, both had a visitor attempt to persuade them to leave, and most importantly both refused. It was stated during class that Socrates “could leave if he wants to”, however to Socrates this would mean that “If he leaves he destroys himself and his city”. In addition to this, Socrates, unlike Korrigan, knows he faces impending death upon his refusal to comply. Socrates feels that his cause, his morals, and his actions are bigger than this fate, ultimately sending him to his death. Although he personally did not kill himself, constantly refusing to acknowledge his faults knowing it will send him to his death could count as an indirect suicide

State's absolute sovereign: What’s behind the Chinese Victory Day Military Parade

Recently, China marked the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII and its role in defeating the Japan by holding a gigantic military parade in Beijing which had more than 12,000 troops attended including nearly 1000 oversea troops. According to the state media, the main purpose of this parade was aimed to improve the awareness of the importance of peace all over the world and to ensure people’s confidence in the government.

However, there are inner connotations that beneath the seemingly spectacular celebration of the righteous. According to The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-reveals-guest-list-for-big-military-parade-1440480312, the official government claims it is a victory parade for the ending of the WWII, nonetheless, troops that represent the major forces in the allies power that had dominant impacts in the victory of the war like the United States were not even in the guest lists. Most troops that attended that day's parade were China’s allies nowadays like Russia, North Korea and Cuba. It turns out that actually is a well-planned show off of China’s military power, to pile pressure on its counter powers and to secure the safeness of China’s sovereign and safety both from the domestic and international level. According to Thomas Hobbes, the sovereign itself has the obligation to protect its citizens and help to defeat the outer power; Hobbes also states that once the convents between you and the states once signed, you would never be able to disobey it. Also, according to the words of Chinese state, the pursuance of the party equals to the pursuance of its people, thus people has to act highly consistent with the party. This point is similar to Hobbes saying:“the sovereign is its people, thus his action is the people’s action.”

Though China was one part of the allies power that helped the ultimately defeated the axis power during the WWII, however, the Communist Party of China was not the dominant power at that time in China, it was the Nationalist government that contributed most in the setting of China battlefield. This point can be traced back to Plato’s Politics. In this book, Thrasymachus stated that the justice is the advantage of the stronger. In this case, it truly is. According to the article, it is apparent that the Communists here are trying to rewrite the history like they always do; the party tries to pocket all the glory and victoriousness of this war by fooling the public that they did all the contributions.

In my opinion, the whole military parade was a show that targeted to the interests of the state and the party. Like Thomas Hobbes stated, live in a state that ruled by one smart brain has its sole advantages. Nonetheless, we need to see that people live in society like this would easily lose their consciousness towards right and contribute to  the formation of tyranny, which will make the people the ultimate sufferers.

Protect The People

Edward Snowden released Top Secret information regarding the collection of data by the National Security Agency. In the article "NSA Files: Decoded" that was published by The Guardian in 2013 explains how the NSA and other security agencies argue that the collection of cellular data are necessary to combat existing terrorist threats against the United States. The issue with the colossal collection of data is many citizens argue that it violates their Fourth Amendment right. However, the NSA believes that what they are doing preserves the lives of Americans. The Patriot Act that was put into action after 9/11 allowed the NSA to exercise this program, but many citizens believe they have gone to far and have violated their Constitutional rights.  But what if the NSA is able to prevent another 9/11 due to their massive collection of data? Is the life of the citizen more important than the right of the citizen?
According to Hobbes, the government must protect the lives of their people at all costs. As long as the government protects the lives of the people then it is a just government. Locke agrees that the government must protect the lives of the people, but he believes the people's rights to liberty and property are just as important. After 9/11 people felt threatened within their own country, which was not the case before the attacks. Due to the fear of the people and the threat of Al Qaeda the government took a Hobbes like approach to policy making. The government was empowered more and security agencies were more aggressive in tracking potential threats. However, with 9/11 in the history books and the revealing information released by Snowden, some citizens feel that the government has violated their 4th Amendment rights by collecting cellular data. Hobbes would most likely feel that the collection of data is just because the government is making the lives of the citizens the number one priority. Locke, however, would feel that the government is being unjust because it is taking away the rights of the citizens. Personally, I feel that the collection of data is necessary because I am certainly willing to give information that could possibly lead to the apprehension of terrorists cells living within the country. I also want to ensure the protection of my family, and the prevention of another 9/11. The Al Qaeda network and lone wolf attacks such as the Boston Marathon bombing have proven that terrorists have the capability to infiltrate this country with intention of murdering its people. Therefore, I believe that it is just for the people to sacrifice their rights in order to guarantee the protection of the citizens living in this country. With the increase in technology use and the increase of terrorist threats in the country the argument between protection versus rights will continue.

Justice: Immigration and Living Under the Law

Currently  according to the American Immigration Council's article The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine | Immigration Policy Center The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine while the number of illegal immigrants entering the country has slightly decreed. More illegal immigrants are being deported now then in past years. Under President Barack Obama's administration, two million illegal immigrants have been deported from the United States. The modern policies aim towards automatic deportation. As the number of deportations since 1980-2012 has increased the numbers of voluntary returns offered to the offenders has decreased due to the governments new policies and outlook. As time passes, more and more laws are created or altered to make staying in the United States harder for illegal immigrants and resulting in criminal offenses.

In class we covered and discussed Plato's Crito, about Socrate's reasoning for remaining in his cell. Two of his reasons can apply to the response of the US Government to Illegal Immigrants. First of all one of Socrate's reasons was that when a person choses to live in a state and benefits from it, they have entered a contract do abide by the laws and punishment's. When an immigrant wether they be legal or illegal, enters a new country for example the US. they should expect to cooperate with any laws regarding immigration. And if they violate these laws they should expect repercussions.  So it should be fair that any immigrant who enters a country should follow the rules and the justice system of the land they have chosen to live in. The second reason for Socrates remaining in Athens was that if he left he would be leaving his sons behind with is tarnished legacy. When many illegal immigrants enter a country. Their cheating of the system which legal immigrants enter through. Can cast a bad reputation to all immigrants because the public will often personify their anger on both types of Immigrants. Leading to accidentally displacement of Legal immigrants by mistake.

Justice is not relative

Can States Ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?

In class, we have had discussed the notion of justice as both a metaphysical concept and as a concrete manifestation occurring in law.  I believe that it is important to consider the metaphysical concept of justice first, and then apply it to the law.  It is not easy to create a solid outline of what is justice, however.  In Crito, we find an argument that justice is founded in reason.  This seems like a reasonable starting point in understanding the concept.  In Plato's The Republic, it is suggested by Thrasymachus that justice is the advantage of the stronger.  I reject that idea based on Socrate's assertion that about the just man being controlled by reason.  Hobbes' state of nature is a great example of an unjust society that has succumbed to chaos, and is dominated by the strong.  Part of banding together and creating a social contract means protecting the weak; people who are as human as the rest of us and have the same basic human rights that extend to every person.  In our class discussion, many people argued for ethical relativism.  This is a problematic belief to hold.  For example, Ted Bundy used ethical relativism to defend his actions during his trial.  This is what he said, as cited by Louis Pojman in the article "A Critique of Ethical Relativism":

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself, that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring the strength of character to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."  

It is difficult to reconcile holding a belief that would give a serial killer reason to believe that his actions were as just as eating ham.  There is much to critique about ethical relativism, though it is an attractive idea that allows one to hide behind it rather than tackle the difficulties of defining an objective system of morals.  It is especially attractive when one considers how one might go about defining an objective system, because in that case it is easy to argue for the existence of a higher power who would be able to dictate right and wrong.  Which, in my opinion, is another cop out.  One can be moral and just without having to subscribe to any sort of spirituality, as we see with Socrates in Crito.
This brings us to the law, which in America is a sort of objective system of justice that is independent of the church.  Our courts make the ultimate decisions about what justice means, and write opinions which defend their judgments.  The Supreme Court is the most important interpreter of the law, as it determines what is just for every citizen.  However, there are some who decide that the Court has made the wrong decision- that perhaps they have misinterpreted the meaning of justice.  One recent example of this is found in the rejection of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage.  One judge in Alabama argued that judicial restraint was the best way to handle the issue, and refused to adhere to the Supreme Court's decision.  We also see Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee arguing against the adherence of the law.  This, however, is quite wrong.  As Socrates argues in Crito, the law has shaped us as a people, and it is the law that protects us from falling into the state of nature.  We owe it to the law to abide by it.  The Supreme Court's interpretations have ended many injustices being committed against the weaker.  By rejecting the law, we weaken it and lose something very valuable.

Justice: Exclusions May Apply

After the Supreme Court Ruling favoring same sex marriage on June 26, 2015, the United States was in a frenzy some were jubilant while others were distraught, but none of those emotions could amount to the action that Kim Davis took against the Supreme Court. In the Huffington Post article Kim Davis Asks Appeals Court To Let Her Refuse To Issue Marriage Licenses, Steve Bittenbender explains how Davis,49, was sentenced to jail for 6 days after her refusal to distribute marriage licenses to gay couples. While she was away deputy clerks were signing off on marriage licenses, but without Davis' signature, the licenses were labeled as void. Upon her release Davis's attorney requested that she retain the right to ban same-sex marriage licenses until the case was settled and Davis demanded the firing of all deputy clerks who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples while she was away.

The reason why this is important is because it has to deal with the essential principles of Justice. As Socrates stated justice complies with following the laws of the land but when the land clashes within itself, then what is a citizen to do? When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights they included the freedom of religion and also the right to marry. But if you are clerk, like Kim Davis, whose religion strictly prohibits the condoning of homosexual activities, then can we as a people say she was being unjust? Even though she was upholding her first amendment as a U.S. Citizen? The questions this entire case brings up alone does not only show the inadequacies in the government but also arises questions in terms of Justice. Who deserves it? The woman upholding her right as a US Citizen? The same-sex couple who have been fighting to get married in their country? Is there a way to appease both, and if so, how?