Governments have always limited it's citizens freedoms and/or privacy to provide measures of security. In London there is cameras all over the place to attempt to lower the crime rate in the city. The US for years profiled its citizens for years to try to identify potential terrorists targets, and everyone has been fine it. This all changed though when Edward Snowden brought forth the severity of the spying the agency is doing. The whole country was blind to the fact that the NSA was monitoring everything they were doing and once they knew they called for it to end. Mr. Snowden's thoughts on the program ending/reformed summed up the nation's thoughts nicely, "Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness..."
Due to situations like the NSA we have to examine if it is worth giving up rights and privacy in order for security to be provided to us. In this specific situation was saw that people were not in favor of giving up their privacy, but is it like that in every situation? Personally I am fine with the government restricting some of my liberty or freedom and even taking away some of my privacy if that guarantees me some security. I have the mind set that if I am not doing anything wrong then there is nothing to worry about.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
The Greater Good vs. Religious Beliefs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nuns-linked-to-mother-teresa-halt-adoption-services-to-avoid-single-divorced-parents/2015/10/10/338111fe-6ec2-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html
The
link posted above is to an article written by Rama Lakshmi for The Washington Post. The article
discusses how thirty orphanages, run by a group founded by Mother Teresa called
the Missionaries of Charity, have decided to stop their adoption services in
India due to a new government system that makes it easier for single and
divorced people to adopt children. According to Sister Amala from Nirmala
Shishu Bhawan, an orphanage in New Delhi that is run by the Missionaries of
Charity, are doing this because they, “believe our children may not receive
real love,” and that these children, “need both parents, male and female.” This
new system was created to boost India’s low adoption rates. India has
approximately 16 to 30 million orphans and out of those high numbers, only
2,500 were adopted last year. In comparison to the 5,700 orphans that were
adopted four years ago, the recent numbers are substantially lower. This new
system is reviewed by valuable, good people that have extensive experience in
adoption, according to Maneka Gandhi, the minister for women and child
development. Gandhi is trying to persuade the Missionaries of Charity to agree
with this new system because she believes it will change the adoption process
in a positive way.
This
article made me think about the idea of the “general will” that we discussed in
class. I reread the article numerous times trying to figure out who I believed
to be “right” in this situation in regard to the “general will.” The
Missionaries of Charity disagree with the new system, where the government
believes their new system will only bring positive change. When determining the
“general will,” which is the common interest of a community, I considered the
orphan children to be the community. Since it is the children that are going to
be placed with new families, I believe that what is best for them should be the
primary goal of this situation. That being said, I believe that if this new
system is going to be for the greater good of the children, then the
Missionaries of Charity should ignore their religious beliefs and comply with
the government’s system. In regard to Rousseau and his idea of the “general
will,” what do you think he would say about the Missionaries of Charity refusing
to partake in the governments new system? Thinking even further back to our
class discussions, what do you think Plato would say? Consider Plato’s beliefs on justice. Do you think he would consider the Missionaries of Charity’s
decision to be unjust?
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Tyranny of the Majority in the U.S.- Adriana Reisser
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html
The link above is to an article written by The Telegraph. It is about a study that was done in 2014 by Princeton and Northwestern Universities. The universities studied political trends in order to see what group generally had the most influence on the outcome of U.S. government policy. They concluded that the majority (normal citizens and mass-based interest groups) have the littlest amount of influence. The people with the most influence turned out to be the economic elites as well as organized groups representing big businesses interests. The governments policies barely ever align with the majority and tend to be more similar to the ideals of special interest groups and lobbyists. The study concluded that even if citizens want change or do not agree with interest groups, they still don't get what they desire.
This article reminded me of what we read from de Tocqueville. Although he was fairly pro American government and policy, he had a strong fear of tyranny of the majority. He thought it was all too possible in the U.S. due to the way our democracy is set up. He made a claim that if a person of a minority group had an injustice committed against them, they would have nowhere to turn to because every part of the judicial system is run by the majority. He believed that they could gain control to the point where tyranny would set in. However, this article claims the opposite. They say that the majority rarely holds the most power. In my opinion, de Tocqueville is a little over-the-top with his fear of tyranny of the majority. I believe it would be more likely that the a tyranny of the elites could appear. If you look at this article, do you think that he would still make the same claim? Or would he possibly say that the elites could be a tyranny of their own? What do you think?
The link above is to an article written by The Telegraph. It is about a study that was done in 2014 by Princeton and Northwestern Universities. The universities studied political trends in order to see what group generally had the most influence on the outcome of U.S. government policy. They concluded that the majority (normal citizens and mass-based interest groups) have the littlest amount of influence. The people with the most influence turned out to be the economic elites as well as organized groups representing big businesses interests. The governments policies barely ever align with the majority and tend to be more similar to the ideals of special interest groups and lobbyists. The study concluded that even if citizens want change or do not agree with interest groups, they still don't get what they desire.
This article reminded me of what we read from de Tocqueville. Although he was fairly pro American government and policy, he had a strong fear of tyranny of the majority. He thought it was all too possible in the U.S. due to the way our democracy is set up. He made a claim that if a person of a minority group had an injustice committed against them, they would have nowhere to turn to because every part of the judicial system is run by the majority. He believed that they could gain control to the point where tyranny would set in. However, this article claims the opposite. They say that the majority rarely holds the most power. In my opinion, de Tocqueville is a little over-the-top with his fear of tyranny of the majority. I believe it would be more likely that the a tyranny of the elites could appear. If you look at this article, do you think that he would still make the same claim? Or would he possibly say that the elites could be a tyranny of their own? What do you think?
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Common Interest and Pharmaceutical Companies
During the past couple of weeks there have been stories about pharmaceutical companies buying older drugs and raising the prices tremendously. The Pharmaceutical company Valeant bought the rights to sell the drugs Nitropress and Isupre. They raised the price of Nitropress by 212% and Isuprel 525%. By raising the prices of the drugs by a large amount they are generating a massive amount of income. This is good for people who have stock in the company because by increasing the price of the drugs they are also increasing the price of the company stock. Many citizens have been outraged by the price increase because they still need to buy the drugs.
Last class we talked about the "general will" which is the common interest of a community. This article reminded me about our talk about the general will because the head of Valeant is not making decisions based on the common interest of the people who need to take the drugs. If the head of Valaent had the interests of the community in mind then he would of not raised the prices of the drugs. But he is acting upon the premise of making the company more valuable because he wants to raise the companies stock price. By doing that he is making the people who have stock in the company very rich. The article stated that the company increased the prices of the drugs because they were going to put that extra money towards research. This research is directed towards creating better more effective drugs. But in the article it says that the company only used 3% of its sales on research. Would Rousseau think that the company Valaent had the common interest of the people who take their drugs in mind when they increased the prices?
Last class we talked about the "general will" which is the common interest of a community. This article reminded me about our talk about the general will because the head of Valeant is not making decisions based on the common interest of the people who need to take the drugs. If the head of Valaent had the interests of the community in mind then he would of not raised the prices of the drugs. But he is acting upon the premise of making the company more valuable because he wants to raise the companies stock price. By doing that he is making the people who have stock in the company very rich. The article stated that the company increased the prices of the drugs because they were going to put that extra money towards research. This research is directed towards creating better more effective drugs. But in the article it says that the company only used 3% of its sales on research. Would Rousseau think that the company Valaent had the common interest of the people who take their drugs in mind when they increased the prices?
If you were Jason Rezaian
The link posted above talks about a Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who was arrested because of espionage charges, and has stayed in jail for more than one year even though he is guiltless. Not only his family and the Post, but also the US Government have claimed that he was just simply working as a journalist. However, Jason Rezaian is now still being detained without any live witnesses or real evidence to prove him guilty. Jason Rezaian was born and raised in California, he decided to move to Tehran in 2008. Clearly, moving to the biggest city of the currently turbulent Iran is not a action of seeking peace and comfort. Nevertheless, Jason Rezaian still chose to live there because he wanted to promote greater understanding between Iran and the United States. From our perspective, it is undoubted that the Iranian Government has violated human rights as well as the International law, however, do we really have the right to judge the court decision of the other country even though we regard the decision as unjust? And if you were Jason Rezaian, how would you face the current hopeless situation? Will you make the same decision like Jason made before moving to Tehran?
Like Hobbes argues in Leviathan:“nothing the sovereign representative can do to a subject, on what pretense soever, can properly be called injustice, or injury; because every subject is author every act the sovereign doth; so that he never wanteth right to anything, otherwise, than as himself is the subject of God, and bound thereby to observe the laws of nature” (Hobbes, 140). Hence, it is reasonable for the Iranian Government to assume that Jason Rezaian has already being prepared for whatever it would do to him. Clearly, it is impossible for two nations like the U.S. and Iran to share the entirely same laws and principles. Since it was Jason Rezaian who decided to work there, there is nothing he can do other than obey the local laws. After all, it is unrealistic for us force the Iran Government to act in a way that we regard as just and moral. Therefore, if I were Jason Rezaian, I would accept this situation, though unwillingly. In Chapter 21, p.141, Hobbes states that: “If a man be interrogated by the sovereign, or his authority, concerning a crime done by himself, he is not bound to confess it; because no man can be obliged by covenant to accuse himself”. Thus, instead of being hurt both physically and mentally, Jason should strive against the Iran Government and prove himself to be sinless. What’s more, if we all need to make the same kind of decision which requires us to balance between potential risks and strong personal will, I will choose to follow my heart fearlessly even while I’m totally submissive to the new country’s regime, and would follow the commands without any conditions.
A New African Social Contract?
http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=6399
This economic editorial outlines a scenario in which, according to the author, indicates the need for a new social contract in African states. There are a plethora of economic resources, which if used correctly, can lead to a better standard of living throughout the continent. African rulers generally are not held accountable by their constituents because there is no system in place that allows for this. Africa is full of violent dictatorships that abuse the commodities their countries are in possession of for their own personal gain, instead of serving the people of their state. For Africa to advance into the 21st century, a new social contract is needed; one that will create a system that allows the people to hold their rulers accountable for their actions and promotes the will of the people.
This article does not mention much of Rosseau's theory, although he is quoted in the opening paragraph. The author relates a social contract to an apparatus which keeps the sovereign accountable to the people and does not mention the theory of general will in his article. I believe that the 'general will' is inherent in a sovereign which is held accountable for its actions to the people. Therefore, the general will does not exist as an independent entity. Rosseau says that the common will allows the sovereign to control state actions according to the common good, but I believe the inverse is the reality; state policy is written to be the common good because the government is accountable to the people. The general will does not allow the common good to be employed in the sovereign's actions.
Is general will legitimate as an independent theory, or does it go hand in hand with a sovereign that acts in the interest of the people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)