blog 7

What to do About the Poor?

states that America is affluent… I agree and disagree with this statement. Our country in the grand scheme of the world is a very well off nation, there are many employed people, living conditions are adequate and people are well fed. On the other hand, our overall economy struggles, several of our jobs are being sent overseas and wages are dropping for current employees of big corporations. I believe affluent nations have fairly low poverty rates, low unemployment rates and good living conditions. The results of affluent nations include the overall nation taking care of its people who are less off. If they help the less unfortunate people out, then the overall status of the nation will increase. Galbraith

                                                                

If a nation is overall prospering then to a certain extent, it is the government’s job to establish available jobs for the citizens who are struggling to find employment. In order to close the gap between the rich and the poor, I believe employment is the first step. I don’t think the rich need to be punished for being well off but instead the poor need to be driven into work. Our county cannot afford to tax the working class more than what is currently being done, instead the unemployed need to be driven into jobs and start to earn money for themselves.

This link is to an article on CNN which discusses thee rich poor gap. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinion/sutter-solutions-income-inequality/

Blog 6

Communism Solves All

To most of you the above statement sounds outrageous, but to Karl Marx he truly believed this. He believed in two social classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The role of the bourgeoisie in society was to innovate and make society better. This class was the middle class; their wealth was based off of their property value. Bourgeoisie’s were necessary for improving the country’s portrayal of itself to other nations. By passing on industrialization ideas it made that particular nation seem more prosperous. The proletariat on the other hand was the poor people whose main source of income was labor. They were continuously living in poverty.  

In Marx’s eyes communism would alleviate the proletariat class from poverty. By having the government own all land the bourgeoisie class wouldn’t exist because they wouldn’t have anything to base their wealth off of. 

On the topic of alleviating poverty, I do and don’t believe that donating will solve the rich and poor problem. If rich people are donating to the poor, there still is going to be rich and poor people. The poor need to learn to work and fend for themselves instead of just always taking from the rich. I think Carnegie’s example of dispensing the wealthy’s money while they are alive is a good plan because at least they will be able to see what is being done with their money yet at the same time I don’t think the rich people should have to be responsible for the poor. 

Democracy... Good or Bad?

Democracy… Good or Bad?

       Aristotle defines a democracy as “the rule of the poor and the rule of the majority.” He doesn’t particularly support this type of government because it could potentially be dangerous. If the majority is poor and uneducated then they would be the ones in charge by definition of a democracy. While having these lesser people as rulers the nation is set for turmoil. 

 

         This picture above is a huge component of United States history; it is the signing of the constitution. I believe that if Aristotle saw this he would not consider America a democracy. His comments about the painting may include the following: only upper class, only educated men, small number. All of these observations would push Aristotle to believe this was an oligarchy.  

         The painting possesses many elements of colonial times. For example, the furniture and the chandelier are very relevant to the time along with the color scheme. The classic dark greens, blues and reds give the image a serious and sophisticated look. The windows are open letting in sun on Washington and the American flags. The room is filled with around 40 delegates who signed the constitution while missing about 16 others who had not.  

         Those who had signed the constitution mostly consist of senators, governors or house of representative members. All of these men were well educated and knew what they were talking about when it came to politics. This group did not represent all members of society very well although some did come small rural areas.  

         The democracy that we see in America today is not very comparable to what Aristotle called a democracy. He would have expected to see many poor people in charge of the nation let alone some wealthy knowledgeable white men. I think that Americans call ourselves democrats because we do get to help chose who leads us and we do get some say in how the nation is ran. We would not be true democrats in Aristotle’s eyes however because the majority does not rule. 

Breaking the Laws for Justice

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter

From Birmingham Jail

         “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s with power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” -MLK This quote is the key idea behind Martin Luther King Jr.’s thoughts about justice, when it is being denied action must be taken.  

         Injustice within the black community during this time was very prominent and Martin Luther King Jr. was not going to stand for it. He believed like Thoreau that sometimes it was necessary for direct action to take place. If the government is not treating its people with respect, then their laws are not to be followed but instead gone against and bettered. Both of these men are strongly against slavery because it diminishes that particular individual’s basic rights. Suffering for their beliefs was always an option for both MLK and Thoreau, no changes would be made without suffering.

          “The Defense of Injustice,” is an essay in which there are two characters if you will who argue the necessity of justice. One believes that full justice is never possible while the other speaks how justice is needed and a nation cannot function as well without justice. While reading this essay, people will be enlightened to consider just an unjust laws and the morality that goes along with them.

Civil Disobedience and War

Civil Disobedience and the Mexican War

Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” is a work that draws a corrupt government to the surface, well at least that is what Thoreau intended. During a time when slavery was very heavily depended on Thoreau wrote this piece after spending a night in jail. He comments on what he believes the government's duties and values should be and how they should treat the individual. One moral obligation that Thoreau believes the government should follow is to outlaw slavery. All individuals should be treated with dignity and respect by the government. “That government is best which governs least,” this quote demonstrates Thoreau’s thought that less government is best. The whole laissez faire idea plays a huge role in Thoreau's thoughts. His idea on government relates to ours today because we clearly are against slavery and for the equal treatment of all men. Also we try to keep the government out of our problems as much as possible.

When it comes to the Mexican War Thoreau was strongly against it, he believed that our government was being overly aggressive. President Polk believed that it was the United State’s “manifest destiny” to acquire as much land as we could. He engaged in war when there was disagreement between Mexico and the U.S. over who owned which land. I think for sure Thoreau had reasons to question the aggressiveness of the American government at the time, we participated in war to try an take land from a different country. I can see why Thoreau would believe the government was being overly aggressive.  

Mexican War

Blog 2

Governments Galore

            Rousseau has total faith in the people, he believes that they should govern themselves and they only need a ruler until they can keep track of themselves. He most likely would approve of current day democracies because they allow the people to be active in their government. The ruler of Rousseau’s form of government must be loyal to his people and act as a father figure, guide the way for his children/ citizens then let them go once they have all of the necessary skills to fend for themselves. The citizens living within this land must be willing to give up their individual rights to a social contract which groups up all of their rights into one big community right.

            I don’t believe that any government of this sort actually exists, I mean yes there are democracies don’t get me wrong but a citizen ruled state would be a disaster. I think it is necessary for there to be one central ruler or leader in charge. It is like a company for instance, it is not going to run well if everyone is trying to collaborate and come to an agreement, there needs to be a single individual to keep everything straight and make the final call on what is going to happen. Rousseau’s idea is good in theory because yes the people do get to be a part in making laws and decisions for their state but in the end someone needs to have the final say.

         Machiavelli 's idea compared to Rousseau seems very harsh, his leader is to be actively involved with governing his people. He believes that whatever the prince decides to do it will always be right and should be honored by the people, even though that choice may not be ethical. This idea can be generated by reading Machiavelli’s the “ends justify the means” quote. The Declaration of Independence does justify the colony’s rebellion because they were not being treated fairly by their ruler. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being denied to the people by the government then they are justified to overthrow their current government.

         

        I believe that independence can justify war and death, this is because the wellbeing of the people of the nation should come first. If the people are not being treated fairly then they should be able to do whatever it takes to be insured independence and freedom. I think that Jefferson was pleased by the independence that was gained from the American Revolution, although there was a lot of bloodshed I think he believed that it needed to be done. I think that he would have agreed with Machiavelli’s quote because independence did justify the means of war.

Lao Tzu vs. Machiavelli

Lao Tzu vs. Machiavelli

Government, politics, leaders…

 Below you will find a comparison of Lao Tzu’s very poetic ideas on government compared with Machiavelli’s more strict ideas.

Political figure	Lao Tzu	Machiavelli
Purpose of Government	This intellectual believes that the government’s main purpose is to maintain the wellbeing of the people. Unlike traditional governments, their power is limited in order to avoid changing nature’s course. Along with this the government will not try to convince its people of anything.	Maintaining power is a huge component of Machiavelli’s idea on government. By keeping the nation strong its people will in turn be peaceful and happy. Similar to Lao Tzu, Machiavelli also believes that the wellbeing of the country’s citizens must always be kept in mind. Lastly the government must create laws and rules that apply to the specific situation at hand.
Leader’s Obligation	According to Lao Tzu the leader has many obligations: no use of violence, maintain happy citizens, enter battles with sorrow. These are just a few of the very important traits a leader must maintain. One main obligation of the leader is to avoid influencing change but instead just let nature take its course. Lao Tzu says “the world is a sacred place,” things should not be altered by the individual but instead should just be left alone. A more obscure obligation is that the leader must be discrete in governing the people, if they don’t think that they are being governed then there will be less problems.	On the complete opposite side of the spectrum lies the obligations of the leader in Machiavelli’s eyes. The concerns/rights of the individual within the country are to be ignored by the leader. In this type of government, it is necessary to do what is best for the country not the individual. The main role of the leader is to secure power and security of the nation by direct an effective means. With this comes a leader who must be loved but feared at the same time. Now this may all seem a bit much but Machiavelli does not intend for this leader to be a tyrant.
Work of the State	Good relations between the people of the state and the leader are key within Lao Tzu’s idea of government. Similar to the leader’s role the people must also let nature influence what will happen. By living under a government described by Lao Tzu the people of the state are lead toward being less selfish. With the elimination of the desire for material goods people of this state are less likely to commit crime. Overall Lao Tzu’s thinking basically says that less government intervention equals happier citizens.	Less government is not the case in Machiavelli’s eyes…actually it is the complete opposite. The people of this type of state must express fear as well as love toward their leader. For example, if someone did something wrong they would be brutally punished in front of the other townspeople as an example of what would happen if a crime was committed. This was done to instill fear. Contrary to the previous statement, leaders would benefit the community by keeping them safe and donating to communities. Overall people of this state must know that the leader is in place to keep the security of the state intact.
Qualities of the Leader	Often named Master or Sage, which means wise, must have multiple traits in order to be a successful leader. The leader must always trust his people and not talk or act out of character. When it comes to power he must not try to be powerful but instead just let nature make him powerful.	The number one quality of Machiavelli’s leader is that he must be able to survive. With survival comes knowing how to hunt, follow the land and the history of the country. As a leader his profession is to be competitive in wars and express discipline. There is no time off for the leader, even in time of peace he must still be training. Although this leader seems to be intimidating he must also have good virtues and intelligence.

Following the comparison are some videos about Lao Tzu and Machiavelli's ideas.

This is Lao Tzu's Philosophy of The Way

This is an Introduction of Machiavelli's piece The Prince