All we take for granted

It's so much — more than we can comprehend. I realized this during our class discussion about the USA PATRIOT act last week in class. I was pretty surprised and kind of frightened to discover that some people in class seemed to have no problem with the act whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I understood their points, definitely, which were basically, "I don't have a problem with it because I'm not doing anything wrong and I have nothing to hide." I get that, and really I don't have anything to hide either, so I don't feel especially threatened.

But the point of all of this is, that's not the point. The real gist of this is that our first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights are being threatened under the Patriot Act. And some people are totally okay with that, which blows my mind. Maybe it's because our generation wasn't the one who had to fight to gain these rights in the first place, an neither were our parents or even grandparents. Maybe it's because we are so far removed from it, and don't know what it's like to not possess these rights, that we take them for granted and assume they will always be there. Amendment rights, of course, are not tangible so maybe that's why it's hard to imagine missing them.

What scares me about the surveillance and lack of privacy included in the Patriot Act is the potential they hold for even more similar legislation. Under Obama's presidency, I don't really think that would happen, but if Bush were to be starting another term, I would definitely be worried. It's a slippery slope, though, no matter who sits in the Oval Office — how far will the government go in the name of security?

BNW & V

So about "BNW" and "V" — I found our class discussions last week and the week before, about the book and the movie, and especially about how the book relates to the movie and vice versa, especially interesting. I read BNW early in my senior year of high school for an english class, but I don't remember looking at it and discussing it in the ideological context that we did in this class and we didn't devote nearly as much discussion to it as we should have. And as far as "V" goes, I had heard it was a good movie but didn't really have any idea what it was about until we watched it a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, I think we pretty much hit the nail on the head in class, in terms of which society is more secure and which is more free. As Natalie and Maggie and I mused before the large class discussion, the people in BNW are more secure and the people in V are more free, based on the latter group's ability to think for themselves and their memory and knowledge of what life was like not long ago, before the fascist ruling body took over. The basic difference is that the society in BNW was genetically controlled and kept in check biologically their whole lives. I would say they were brainwashed, but it was more than that. But in V, the people, even children, knew that most of the state's actions were complete bullshit (they even knew the media was lying to them, evidenced by the cries of "bullocks!" at the TV during the evening news) but they were powerless to do anything about it. That is, until V came along.

One of the most interesting comments in our class discussion (I can't remember who said this) was when someone brought up the fact that the character V would never exist in BNW, let alone be able to mobilize that society against its government, since no one is born or lives organically in BNW — they are created through genetic engineering and go through a series of treatment to guarantee their status in society, and above all, their satisfaction with it. V himself would never have been dissatisfied with his place in BNW, and neither would anyone else.

Mussolini during the Great Depression and today

In the reading by Mussolini, he asserts that the importance of the State and peoples' desire for its guidance in economics and politics has been growing since 1929. When I think of that year, the first thing to come to my mind is the stock market crash that October. I'm more familiar with the poor state of economics in the U.S. during that time than I am with the economic standings of other countries in the '30s, but I'm guessing we weren't the only ones who had it rough.

Anyway, Mussolini says these crises could only be solved by the State. He throws it in capitalists' faces that the people at the time were supposedly begging for the government to get involved in business operations, almost as if to say "Ha, deregulation was what you wanted, and look how badly the economy is doing now."

The parallels to today are obvious, as everyone is comparing today's economic crisis to the Great Depression. So it makes me wonder how long it will take for people to start calling Obama fascist. He's obviously NOT, but he himself has already said the American people will have to make sacrifices and he's also said many of his rescue policies will not be popular. I'm sure there will be some Republican businessmen out there who are pro-capitalism to the death, who will have a lot to say about Obama's economic relief efforts, once they start happening.

But as Mussolini queried in the reading, "What would they say now to the unceasing, inevitable, and urgently requested interventions of government in business?"

College students could learn a few things from the Freeskool

I was pretty frustrated by some of the thing that were said during Wednesday's heated discussion about the documentary, "This is What Democracy Looks Like." And the sad part is, I wasn't surprised to hear the comments that disheartened me. Questions were raised as to why we should even care about the protest enough to form opinions about it, as well as to what the actions of the Nike company have to do with the plight of workers in third world countries. The fact that these questions were even raised is simply disappointing.

Just because an event in history was not widely publicized, does that mean it’s not worth learning about? Of course not. One would assume that of any classifiable group, college students (who pay thousands for their education) would be the most eager to consume information and stretch their brains. But this is clearly not true.

The bottom line is that we have come to take a post-secondary education for granted. A college education is an expectation, and (for some people) an almost assumed right, instead of the privilege that it is.

This lack of motivation to learn is exactly what anarchism opposes. In the Goldman reading, she asserts that anarchists oppose religion and government because they require to subordination of the individual, and prevent individuals from thinking for themselves. As college students, we NEED to think for ourselves. This doesn't require becoming an anarchists, but it does require opening our minds.

As an expression of anarchist ideology, the Ithaca Freeskool represents the belief of free-thinking. As stated in the article, the skool is based on the idea that humans have a natural urge to teach and learn together, and that no diplomas are needed in order to prove knowledge has been gained.

It seems that many students come to college ONLY for that diploma, that piece of paper that makes them more likely to be hired after graduation. But the truth is, there's more to it than that. An education is more than just a piece of paper.

So when professors show relevant documentaries and ask their class to form opinions about recent, real issues that affect humanity (and believe it or not, affect us directly) we should be grateful.

Socialism gives human nature the benefit of the doubt

Compared to conservativism and liberalism, it seems as though socialists are the group most willing to give human nature the benefit of the doubt. At least from Heywood's interpretation and "spelling out" of what socialists believe it, this is a group that likes to think to best of society. While this optimism is all well and good and could both cause and perpetuate public service by making people feel like they are invested in each other's well-being, sometimes that optimism goes a little too far.

For example, at the end of Heywood's piece, he highlight's Marx's assumption that the state would eventually just wither away. Also, anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin's assumption that people would work together in harmony within a stateless society reads a little like an episode of Barney. I do think there is something to be said for thinking the best of people and society, but too much of this positive thinking is more like wishful thinking.

Conservative "principles" or "arbitrary interpretations"?

Before I dove into Monday's reading, "Ten Conservative Principles" by Russell Kirk, I assumed from the title of the reading that Kirk would outline definitive and inarguable aspects of conservativism, offering an explanation of the ideology.

I was wrong in this assumption. I found Kirk's principles to be not really principles at all, but more his personal interpretations of what a conservative ideology is, based on his experience. Of course, the only truths a person can know are all based on experience. But I was surprised to find I disagree with Kirk in many instances — not so much as to the definition of conservativism, but the beliefs it assumes about people and the world. Maybe because he's obviously conservative, and I definitely consider myself liberal? I don't know.

First, the first principle: the belief in an enduring moral order. I understand the order part, but the belief that moral truths are permanent? No. Different people hold different morals, and therefore different truths, based on their situation and experience. Not even all conservatives can possibly believe in one set of moral truths. That's like saying there is only one correct opinion about a certain topic.

Next, the second: that conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity. Okay, got it. But this part didn't sit right with me: "the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly paradise." Yeah, change could be for the worse — but it could also be for the better. In making a change, a society makes that conscious choice to take that risk.

And finally (but these are not the only three parts of the reading I had issues with) the sixth principle, which states: "To seek for utopia is to end in disaster... we are not made for perfect things. All that we can reasonably expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk."

I actually completely and wholeheartedly agree with this statement. No one is perfect, therefore no society can ever be perfect, and yes, suffering is a natural part of life that will never go away completely. However, within the context of Kirk's writing, the statement assumes that because of this reality, there is no use in attempting to try to improve situations or cease the existence of some evils and suffering through change — just because we know they will always exist. I understand and agree with the "pick your battles idea," that changes should not be made just for the sake of change. However, choosing not to end suffering or rid society of obvious evils is like giving up.

Maybe conservatives are just lazy?

Sarah Palin is an idiot... and other related musings

So I was extremely excited for the VP debate tonight, not only because I'm interested in politics (a new development for me, mostly because of this class as well as the importance and relevance of the looming election) but also because I was looking forward to a good laugh.

Good 'ol (young?) Sarah Palin did slightly better than in interviews with Katie Couric this week on CBS. Or, from my point of view, she wasn't as hilariously stupid, but almost as stupid. Anyway, to relate tonight's debate to capitalist democracy and economic freedom — Palin failed to answer questions related to McCain's support of economic deregulation. Suprise, suprise!

Relating that to the Friedman reading, it got me thinking — why has the U.S. "conservative" economic view come to mean, what used to be, economic liberalism? As Biden brought up multiple times this evening, McCain has done the typical Republican "thing"by supporting economic deregulation.

To me, the reason why capitalism and economic freedom are Republican ideals is that those practices favor big business and the rich sector of the population, the same sector that most of the Republican party is made up of.

While economic freedom is a liberal view, conservatives will obviously condone the practices they benefit from. And deregulation is one of those.

Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan

Hey guys,

So I know we pretty much beat Hobbes' Leviathan to death in class last week, but when I read it, I really wrapped my head around it and found it generally interesting. The most intriguing part about Hobbes' theories was the part where he talked about the natural condition of mankind, and compared that natural state to the state of people when they live under a civilized government/social contract.

Today, we understand the essence of the word "freedom" to mean "being free" from restraint, rules, etc. So on a basic level, we would think that without laws or rules, people are for the most part in a "free," or natural state of being. Hobbes agreed with the "natural" part of that statement, but based on his musings from chapters 13, 17 and 18 (especially 13) He would disagree that people are the most free when their lives are void of laws and regulations.

Hobbes' description of the natural state of man is mostly negative — he basically says all hell breaks loose when people are left to their own devices, and that society is in a constant state of war, which is not to say consistent physical violence, but just general turmoil and disorder.

It's obvious why Hobbes described human nature in this way. He had to make the alternative to his plan seem horrible so that no matter what, people would think his plan for society was the better way to go. The most interesting part of this bashing of the alternative is that not everything about it is true, if taken out of context.

For example, while Hobbes did live in an entirely different era than we do today, I find it hard to believe that without law, even in Hobbes' time, man was constantly quarreling and competing, for either personal gain, safety, or reputation, which were Hobbes' proposed main reasons why people argue and fight. I think he made it seem like this would be the constant state of things so that people would fear such a state of living, and then follow Hobbes' societal contract to prevent such a natural, quarrelsome state of living at all costs.

While it might seem like a stretch, this approach is somewhat similar to the Bush administration's declaration back in 2001 and the years following, that there were "weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East. Were there, or are there? Evidence (or lack of) over the past several years has pretty much proved these weapons don't exist, and probably never did. However, the Bush administration convinced the majority of the American people that these weapons did exist and also convinced them to fear them, so that the alternative the administration was simultaneously proposing — war — would seem desirable. What would our lives be like if we didn't do anything about these "weapons of mass destruction?" No one really wanted to find out, so they supported out country's entrance into the Middle East conflict.

A similar thing was happening with Hobbes' audience so many centuries ago. The way he proposed the natural state of man and compared his alternative to it was an effective way to convince people to support his societal theories.