In the Block 2B class, our discussion of Whitman's views of democracy veered into questions of equality and justice. The image above came up as an example of two competing views of fairness. While it's definitely a generalization, conservative Americans typically see the redistribution of wealth and resources as unfair to the most successful, while liberals think that without redistribution, the least well-off don't get the same chance at success, which they see as unfair. So which is it? More specifically, WHAT is a fair/just/good society, WHY is our society not fair/just/good enough, and HOW do we make it fairer/more just/better? That's what we're going to discuss here. Anyone interested in extra credit can post a paragraph with their thoughts, or respond respectfully and substantively to another's post. I'd like you to try to use some of the following terms and names from political philosophy if possible. So to begin, check these out: The idea is that you can define a society by its economic system and its social system.
"Left" economics are more communitarian and cooperative - an economy based on shared wealth. "Right" economics are more capitalistic and competitive - an economy based on ownership rights and market trade. Authoritarian social systems are based on strict control of personal behavior; libertarian social systems are based on broad personal freedoms of action and lifestyle choice. This boils down to four combinations: Do you think any offer a way to a strong society? RIGHT LIBERTARIAN: An individualistic small-government society based on free-market trade Examples: Philosopher Ayn Rand, Ron Swanson from Parks and Rec, Candidate Gary Johnson LEFT LIBERTARIAN: A non-hierarchical, cooperative society based on Examples: Philosopher Noam Chomsky, Tibetian Leader The Dalai Lama, Candidate Jill Stein RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN: A hierarchical society valuing tradition, order and nationalist ideals Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Candidate Donald Trump LEFT AUTHORITARIAN: A welfare-oriented society with strong regulations and top-down leadership Philosopher Karl Marx, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Candidate Hillary Clinton (Note that the presidential candidates aren't exact matches to these philosophies.) It's worth considering, too, that no of these ideas fully comprehend our situation... For example, the best-off people (the 1% of the 1%) have far more than we sometimes realize. And what if the real issue has to do with the nature of the fence blocking people in the first place? (What would that fence be? Government? Social biases? Ignorance? What holds us back most?) The picture below introduces these perspectives as additional possibilities to consider.
48 Comments
Brendan Loftus
10/18/2016 08:12:35 pm
Ok Kids. Buckle up, because this is about to be a bumpy ride. I'm gonna start off with my biggest point:
Reply
Brendan Loftus
10/18/2016 08:14:08 pm
Just saying I'm gonna keep posting so lemme know if y'all got any questions. I'll come up with better arguments tomorrow.
Reply
Trinity McQuillan
10/20/2016 05:40:39 pm
You seem to be mostly focusing on the negative things about the government. Not the better things like collecting taxes for community improvements, first responders, schools, etc. and laws. The government keeps order as much as they can because when it all comes down to it there are too many people and too many different opinions in our country to not have someone to give a final word. Our current system does have its faults as you pointed out, it has benefits as well. Government should not be abolished. Just redesigned. It was created 300 years ago. We are past time for an update. A new system that with the same base ideas but fitted for the society we live in today.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
10/20/2016 05:53:13 pm
The government is nothing but a means of oppressing the people. The government has no business taxing us for debts that are not ours. Community improvements are just as easily created by voluntary community action as much as taxes. First responders should be based on community taxes then. The federal government and even state governments shouldn't be taxing us. Really, everyone should maintain their private land and interact through capitalist transactions. Also, if slavery is someone taking 100 percent of your income- at what point does it not? Communities should be the only bodies that have the right to taxation and that should be the end of it. Also, the government is doing a fine job keeping order (Ferguson, Charlotte, Dallas). Even if you look at murders and terrorist threats every day, you can see how well the United States government is really doing at protecting us.
Biggs
10/22/2016 01:19:10 pm
Wow, lots of points! I'm going to offer a few thoughts as someone sympathetic to your anti-authoritarianism. These points shouldn't be taken as an attempt to invalidate your argument, which is well thought-out indeed, but rather to help you strengthen it by addressing some of the murkier points. I'm going to offer some more extra credit to get people on here to respond so you can keep honing your debate skill! I have major respect for anyone trying to make the case for radical change.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
10/19/2016 03:38:15 pm
Well, since no one else wants to comment, I'll just have a conversation with myself.
Reply
Brendan Loftus the Ancap
10/19/2016 04:05:45 pm
Rebuttal to the Rebuttal:
Reply
Brendan Loftus the Statist
10/19/2016 04:06:45 pm
You can't trust people like that though.
Trinity McQuillan
10/20/2016 06:08:00 pm
Rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal:
Brendan Loftus the Ancap
10/19/2016 04:08:16 pm
In response to that Brendan the Statist: Yes You CAN. Emerson and Whitman believe in the human spirit and Anarchy complies with that belief. To every man his castle.
Reply
Brendan Loftus the Statist
10/19/2016 04:09:09 pm
Then why can't we try Socialism; under a dictator we can trust? Can we place our trust in one person?
Reply
Brendan Loftus the Ancap
10/19/2016 04:09:44 pm
You mean Hillary? :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
George Washington
10/19/2016 04:10:59 pm
@BrendanLoftustheAncap @BrendanLoftustheStatist
Biggs
10/22/2016 02:36:47 pm
I've never seen a campaign where the message from both parties was so clearly, "put your trust in this one person!" :/
Brendan
10/20/2016 06:30:35 pm
Rebuttal to the Rebuttal of my previous 2 Rebuttals:
Reply
Biggs
10/22/2016 01:35:31 pm
Brendan, the central tension I see in your argument (and in the An-Cap/Rand worldview in general) is that property comes from the State. You can't have private property without laws and law-enforcement. This is especially true since in most situations, a particular individual or small group "owns" an enterprise, but can't profit from it without the labor of others. You can argue that it's fair because the owners compensate their workers, but why do the owners get to determine the share that each participant in the process of production gets? Entirely because of the legal construct of private property, which is inherently hierarchical. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying this is a major tension in the union of anarchism and capitalism, just like the Leftist's tension between the goal of equality and their dependence on an inherently-hierarchical State model to achieve it.
Biggs
10/22/2016 02:26:25 pm
I agree that moving toward all private schools could create unacceptable inequalities (though I don't know, and neither does anyone else, because no one can unless we actually test it. Science!)
Reply
Summer Smith
10/30/2016 04:06:04 pm
So I'm going to have to dissagree with most of what you said Mr. Biggs. Unlike you, I think that Common Core was a great idea. (This could also be different since my argument is coming from a students point of view). It's a great idea to have the whole country learning primarily the same thing at the same time is very beneficial. Having a friend for say living in CA learning the same thing in Algebra that I am learning in NJ is practice because we can both discuss what we are learning and work on problems together(not saying this happens very often) But an example that hits closer to home is with my math tutor. She teaches Algebra 2 at a different highschool in NJ but thanks to the common core standards she is teaching the same things that we are learning. It's very helpful having everyon on the same page when it comes to teaching/learning. BUT one downside to the common core education is the emphasis on standardized testing. Coming from a terrible test taker, it's extremely frustrated getting graded on only tests. In my opinion students should be less graded on tests and more on ones ability, like projects. Teachers also teach to the big standardized tests we have to take, like the PARCC which I think is extremely annoying.
Brendan
10/30/2016 05:15:56 pm
Summer, Common core is riddled with problems, but the biggest and most concerning is that Common Core is actually the government telling teachers what to teach in classrooms. What? How? That has the possibility to evolve into Communist classrooms where they teach the beauties of our government and are taught not to question and we're dealing with a 1984-esque environment. Common Core is just a precursor to something much, much worse.
Jackie Prestininzi
10/19/2016 06:00:10 pm
Based on the conversation we had during class, I find it hard to distinguish which side of that picture represents equality correctly. . Frankly, I do not think either sides do. On the conservative side each person (economic class) is given the same number of boxes. However on the liberal side each of the people are given the amount of boxes they need to watch the game. Based of the metaphor of the baseball game, the fence is the government and being able to watch the game is a metaphor for being successful in America today. Another way to look at the situation if their was no fence; in other words there were no high standards that the government expects from the citizens in order to be apart of this country. What if, it was easier to be successful in this country because everyone didn't have pay such high taxes and there wasn't that "fence"? Basically what would equality look like if it was easier to be successful in this country? To be completely honest I don't think anyone really knows which way is correctly equality. America is a country in which we have so much freedom an opportunity to be successful, it’s impossible to find away to make everyone happy. As people say, Rome wasn’t built in a day; I don’t think a new equality system can be either.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
10/20/2016 05:29:16 pm
The fence has no business being there in the first place. Liberation of the people can only be achieved through a political revolution not seen since 1776. The people of the United States are certainly smart enough to handle their own private affairs, and I believe in the fundamental goodness of the Human spirit. The fence inhibits us and our movement forward. In response to your last sentence Jackie, there is no "new equality system"- the destruction of the fence has been an idea since the 1600s and although the change is slow, no new systems would be implemented. Just a restoration of the Freedoms of Mankind.
Reply
summer smith
10/20/2016 06:16:29 pm
As opposed to you Jackie, I think that the right, liberal side is more fair. Although, the people are not all receiving the same amount of boxes they can still all see the baseball game. This is more fair because everyone can be "involved" in the game. In my opinion though, I beilve everyone has a shot at being successful in this country. And not everyone has to pay such high taxes, it is just the upper class that has to pay the extremely high taxes. (I think). But I do agree that this country would be more fair and equal if everyone has a shot at successful. For example, if everyone could afford a good education and to go to college then more people in the country could be successful and the country would be more equal. Since everyone has the same shot at success.
Reply
Brendan
10/20/2016 06:37:00 pm
Well, why are we taxing people on how successful they are? Taxing the upper class excessively and taxation in general is stupid from an economic standpoint, if people think they aren't making money, they won't spend money. People would be able to afford education if the government didn't take up to 40 percent of our income. College used to be cheaper but after inflation and government subsidies, college expense soared. from 3,000 dollars in 1976 to about 21,000 dollars today. Granted inflation isn't taken into account, but there still has been an astronomical increase in the expense of college.
Christina Wichmann
10/30/2016 04:21:23 pm
Between the two depictions of the baseball game cartoon above, I agree with Summer. I think that the the right side is more fair. Everyone is on a different level, and is unique. However, they are not put onto one level that is marked as "the best", for this leads to stereotypical thinking. Therefore, everyone has a chance to be themselves, but they have an equal view of the baseball game despite their height.
Biggs
10/22/2016 02:54:38 pm
Don't forget the size of the people. In addition to lowering the fence, are there ways to help people "grow," like education, that can lead to more equally shared enjoyment of the game?
Reply
Julia Schneider
10/24/2016 05:50:47 pm
I agree with most of your points Jackie. Neither type of government is the right way to go, you need a mix of both. We also need to observe what works and what doesn't and recognize that this takes time, like you said Rome wasn't built in a day. And as for your interpretation of the picture and it's metaphor I agree that the fence is the government, but I also think it could be the social system of our country, and seeing over the fence is like being successful. I believe that the boxes represent the amount of opportunities you are given. On the conservative side everyone is given the same amount of boxes, or opportunites, and only the tall and middle person can see: the upper class and middle class can be successful, but the shorter guy can't see: the lower class can't be successful. On the liberal side the upper class has no opportunites, the middle class has some, and the lower class has the most, so they can all get the same amount of success. I agree with you that if you take the fence down and diminish these social rules and high standards than it would be a lot easier to be successful, but if you take the fence down then it's a lot easier to get hit with the baseballs, in other words you won't be prepared for the problems that will hit you or the amount of work that being successful brings on.
Reply
Jacob Swartz
10/20/2016 05:37:42 pm
You know with all of this chatter about the wall, do you guys (Brendan) agree that we as a country are becoming stronger with the wall being there. Also that we are thinking too much about the wall and trying our hardest to knock it down but always fail.?.?
Reply
Brendan Loftus
10/20/2016 06:04:25 pm
If we are assuming that we should keep our cohesiveness as a government operated society, then the wall restricts everything we believe in as Americans. We are a nation of Immigrants, and instead of forcing people to cross over illegally, we should be making it easier to get into this great country. Green-cards and the like should be made easier for our Latin-American neighbors and Latin Americans for the most part are industrious people who deserve the American dream just as much as we do. I'm from a strongly Irish-Catholic family and I can sympathize with the Latinos because they were in a very similar position 100 years ago. The wall is an abomination in the eyes of our forefathers and should NOT be built.
Reply
Jacob Swartz
10/20/2016 06:20:15 pm
You have a very strong point, and I agree with you. However do you think that by giving the people the certain box they need is more along the lines of Communism, because you are creating a somewhat equal society suiting the needs of the people, yet the individuals in the stands will still be looked down upon by the "people in the box seats"(more fortunate/rich/Powerful people)?
Brendan
10/20/2016 06:39:06 pm
Well that's the problem, when do we start relying on internal human goodness? Maybe the point I'm trying to suggest is that the government shouldn't be making the boxes and the guys who are watching the game should be making the boxes.
Biggs
10/22/2016 02:11:15 pm
Heh. You know Rothbard has been called the Karl Marx of the Right precisely because of his attempt to formulate a classless capitalism :) But I think both of them are somewhat self-contradictory because they both depend on a formalized power imbalance (a class of capital owners versus regular workers, or a class of government managers versus regular workers).
Brendan
10/30/2016 05:20:48 pm
Well Mr. Biggs, nothing ventured nothing gained. Formal authority is in no way a natural construct- in nature, the strongest lead the way with conflict occurring when a pack or herd crosses into the territory of another. We should revert back to this basic system and only control what happens on our own land and only have grievance with what happens on our own land. A non-Marxist society is fully capable of existing, it is simply in the hands of the people of the United States to overthrow the government and to free themselves of the shackles of oppression.
Grace Noglows
10/20/2016 05:56:56 pm
After our class, I think that true equality is trying to find common ground in the middle between liberal and conservative. While there should be no fence, I believe the Liberal image to the right is preferable to the Conservative image on the left because all three people can see the game without blocking the others’ views. I believe the Pope’s position on the grid is the most attractive; not because he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but because he represents a more central and fair point of view. In the bottom image, Liberation is the preferable outcome; but short of this I think the Equity image is the one that should be the goal, because once again everyone gets to see the game without preventing anyone else from seeing the game.
Reply
Brendan
10/20/2016 06:12:38 pm
Grace the only problem is what if the guy with 2 boxes in the equity picture doesn't appreciate the boxes and feels he's entitled to them simply because of his shortness instead of working for them. The guy in the middle only gets one? and the guy to the left gets none? That doesn't seem fair. I don't know... All I really know is that individualism is what we need, because humans are all unique, and trying to force us to obey this one overarching set of rules that change every 4-8 years seems foolish if not dangerous. I have to say I lean in favor of a Rothbardian system- but steps in that direction have to be taken to ensure the individual liberties of humankind.
Reply
Biggs
10/22/2016 01:54:15 pm
It seems like Grace's point is that extreme inequality can't be good for society, while Brendan's is that if certain people don't contribute, that's bad for society too. Pope Francis wouldn't necessarily want to redistribute wealth through government, but private charity isn't getting us to a point of (at least perceived) economic fairness. So the question is, what METHOD would let us achieve this goal?
Brendan
10/30/2016 05:42:40 pm
Mr. Biggs,
Shea Grant
10/20/2016 08:15:27 pm
Hey guys ! I know I wasn't there for the class discussion but I heard this was extra credit so I'm in.
Reply
Brendan
10/21/2016 12:47:15 pm
Shea, would you agree with me that the government often acts as a symbol of oppression? I just want to hear your thoughts.
Reply
Biggs
10/22/2016 12:41:58 pm
Shae seems to focus on the social aspects of State oppression here - limiting people's personal and sexual freedoms or ability to define their identity. But she suggests it's not oppressive for the State actively intervene in the economy through stimulus spending - a point with which I think Brendan would disagree. This is the core of the debate to me. What power should the State have over the process of economic production?
Shea
11/2/2016 07:41:57 pm
Brendan, I would agree with you that government OFTEN acts a symbol of oppression but my emphasis here is put on often- obviously, as per why I capitalized it. However, I do believe that government is not always oppressive and is indeed necessary for stable function as a country. I support your ideas whole heartedly, but to take everything from the government down to fundamentals entirely would wreak havoc with the social and economics aspects of our day to day lives as Americans. Also, when people feel they are no longer controlled by government, there is the question of how far would they take things, and would there be violent out-spurts in result. Though law enforcement would still be in place, empowerment causes people to jump to outrageous conclusions in some cases. The government is, though, in my opinion, a symbol of oppression. There is monitoring through everything and no one can live their life without having good old big brother breathing down their neck. We're monitored through taxes, legal documents, cars, cell phones, computers, credit cards etc etc. That in and of itself is oppressive because there is no free will, and if there is, it is entirely regulated by our government. We are forced to conform to a common core education through government, which limits and impairs many students in more ways than one- and I truly believe government is oppressive in order to smooth out the bigger picture. They're trying to fix potholes on the street, but they're paying no attention the cracks, which are the cause of potholes. The lack of attention in regards to government is a big factor in why it is oppressive and should be changed if not made smaller smaller smaller
Ethan B
10/22/2016 01:56:16 pm
Our government- like many others- has some serious issues. Nobody can deny that. As somebody who questions authority and traditional values, I believe that societal issues are the concern of societies themselves, and, as such, governments have no place in them.
Reply
Patrick Sullivan
10/24/2016 05:21:35 pm
Hey guys I understand that I'm very late to the discussion, but I would like to respond to Ethan. I think that that quote is very good for our country right now with the up coming election. As everyone is fighting over who would be a less destructive president, maybe we should be somewhat questioning our government, even though it may seem crazy to do since the government has been in charge for so long. I'm not saying there should be a revolution but we should some how react to the way we're being governed and who's running the government.
Reply
Brendan
10/27/2016 08:24:36 pm
Sully, the government of the United States has only been around for 240 years. We came about because the people of the 13 Colonies rebelled when the governed no longer were content with the way they were governed. A revolution is inevitable. I will lay down my life if it sets us free eventually you'll see my ascendency and I AM NOT THROWINAWAY MY SHOT IAM NOT THROWINGAWAY MY SHOT YO IM JUST LIKE MY COUNTRY IM YOUNG SCRAPPY AND HUNGRY AND I AM NOT THROWING AWAY MY SHOT (moving on).
Reply
Sophia Morales
10/25/2016 03:23:29 am
The government can not just be abolished. The government is much more than a federation to take money and that is something that we must acknowledge. Yes there are negative parts of government, but that just means we as a nation must come together for a solution. What would we do without police or firemen for example. Would towns just burn down and crime not be stopped around the world? Right now there is not a correct solution to fix classes, social status, and certain ways government takes your money. But because there is no correct solution that means we can and must put our ideas to together to strive for a better America.
Reply
Biggs
10/25/2016 03:33:22 pm
I think it's possible to say government in its current form needs to evolve without saying that there should be no social organization. But it's important to note that any attempt to move beyond the current system of a centralized government is a.) theoretical for the moment and b.) only thinkable if it involved some alternate ways of providing the societal goods Sophia describes (police/fire, education, infrastructure etc).
Reply
Brendan Loftus
10/26/2016 04:51:30 pm
Reply
Trinity McQuillan
10/29/2016 08:39:06 pm
How do I report a blog post
Christina Wichmann
10/30/2016 03:40:07 pm
Personally, I believe that fence blocking the views for some of society, while not representing any problem to others is a symbol of our stereotypes. As we grow, society has a tendency of marking off and establishing people into certain groups. For instance, often times, people who don't have as much, such as the poor or the disabled are pushed aside because "they will never account to much". Also, society seems to spend more time fixating on the brightest, and most popular people, for they "will go so far in life". I believe this is truly unfair. Just because someone has a disability or a hard life, doesn't mean they should be treated with judgment and disrespect. Plus, just because a person is intelligent or super rich and popular doesn't mean they are hard working. Our stereotypes are what makes the lives of the unlucky tougher; we make it harder for them to prove to us they are just as good as anyone else because we can't get past society's stereotype. People also worry often about what others would think of them if they disregarded stereotypical people and for example, hired someone who was disabled. They would worry that people would not use their business because of that one person. That is truly awful. They don't even have a chance to prove themselves before society put its own label on them and disregard what they have to say. Therefore, if we eliminated the fence of stereotypes, just as the cartoon displays, everyone can watch the ball game. Everyone would be able to reach their full potential if we didn't set such impossible expectations from the world.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |