There is no shortage of words that connect to the theme of ethics, as discussed in class in conjunction with assigned readings. According to Hull, one of the main links stems from the term “rights”. Which rights are “natural” and which ones are imposed by a political system or community? By Hull’s definition, a natural right is inalienable. It cannot be taken away. It is the sole possession of its owner and permanently attached to that individual. On the contrary, a freedom that is attached to a political document is insecure. It is not a “guarantee “ in the eternal sense because in actuality, it could be taken away – a fact often forgotten or overlooked by those who enjoy freedom in the United States.
It is easy to identify the origin of a freedom: is it a natural freedom or a freedom by government creed? According to Foner, is ethical and in the best interested of freedom to enhance it. In similar accordance, if one truly takes freedom seriously, then they must pay attention to the surrounding social conditions. What conditions must be in place for individuals to exercise both their natural and communal freedoms? What is necessary for freedom to flourish?
I come from a family where freedom is of constant conversation. My grandfather is a World War II veteran and the winner of a purple heart. To date, he is a successful businessman, avid philanthropist and horse-racing fanatic. He has many passions and works daily to pursue them. But besides his family, there is nothing of greater importance than freedom. Because without freedom, could all of these passions, past-times, and extracurricular truly exist? In the eyes of a man who will still only purchase American-made goods, the answer is a clear no. Freedom is the most coveted of ethical “rights”.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Response to Parenti
In the most positive of light, there is little left to argue, debate, further support, or elaborate on in regard to “Response to Parenti” and his “so-called ‘imperialism’”. In my own words, I attempted to define capitalism as an economic system of desire, and refute Parenti’s belief that its fundamentals are based on despair and destruction.
However, by citing specific examples to support the claim that ‘Parenti’s argument…is ludicrous’ and stating that ‘Asian traditions are flourishing’ in their capitalist society, a third party would be much more convinced to side with our argument.
Capitalism as an economic theory is difficult to grasp in its conceptual form, supported only by graphical depictions found in economic textbooks. But when the author of the blog puts the ideas into concrete examples, it is difficult to disagree. Yes America could be misconstrued into this terrible, devil-of-a-country that has replaced tradition with a never-quenched thirst for wealth and monetary success. However, the phrase “American dream” exists for a reason—something about Western imperialism is idealized in non-westernized societies. And it is indeed a something that is rooted in capitalism, “the empowerment of peoples”.
However, by citing specific examples to support the claim that ‘Parenti’s argument…is ludicrous’ and stating that ‘Asian traditions are flourishing’ in their capitalist society, a third party would be much more convinced to side with our argument.
Capitalism as an economic theory is difficult to grasp in its conceptual form, supported only by graphical depictions found in economic textbooks. But when the author of the blog puts the ideas into concrete examples, it is difficult to disagree. Yes America could be misconstrued into this terrible, devil-of-a-country that has replaced tradition with a never-quenched thirst for wealth and monetary success. However, the phrase “American dream” exists for a reason—something about Western imperialism is idealized in non-westernized societies. And it is indeed a something that is rooted in capitalism, “the empowerment of peoples”.
Hardly a verdict.
So the documentary…I get it: the EV1 is dead. Thanks Sony for so explicitly showing that fact. But at the end of the film, as a viewer, I was still left with “who killed the electric car?” I was taken through the line-up of suspects, everyone from the government to battery manufacturers to oil companies.
Yes, the government is the only power authority able to actually regulate American’s fuel economy. And technically, because the electric car could only travel about 60 – 80 miles per charge, it regulated the driver’s fuel economy by default. But if an individual is willing to drive less because of the restrictions of their vehicle, shouldn’t that decision be left to them? And furthermore, how is willing to drive less due to physical capabilities any different than a willingness to eat less because of physical capabilities (or lack thereof)? For example, I order a kid’s meal from McDonald’s instead of a value meal because I don’t have the capacity to eat the latter? I am choosing to regulate my intake. I don’t see the difference here.
And then to cite the consumer as a potential murderer of the vehicle? While there is reference to some defense, such as poor advertising and minimal media attention, just the mere mention of this notion is wrong. Americans are creatures of habit. We drive, bike, and walk on the right-handed side of the road and dear goodness, if we are placed abroad behind the “wrong” side of the car on the “wrong” side of the street, we are helpless creatures at the mercy of the world. But in the era of inexpensive gas (in comparison to today’s price) and roomy mom-mobiles/SUVs, manufactures expected us to be miraculously welcoming of their new electric car? Yes the minimal press probably had a lot to do with the slow integration into American society, but please. To blame only one party for our slow or complete lack of acceptance is incorrect. We are not ones quick to accept change, even if it is for the “betterment” of our environment.
Yes, the government is the only power authority able to actually regulate American’s fuel economy. And technically, because the electric car could only travel about 60 – 80 miles per charge, it regulated the driver’s fuel economy by default. But if an individual is willing to drive less because of the restrictions of their vehicle, shouldn’t that decision be left to them? And furthermore, how is willing to drive less due to physical capabilities any different than a willingness to eat less because of physical capabilities (or lack thereof)? For example, I order a kid’s meal from McDonald’s instead of a value meal because I don’t have the capacity to eat the latter? I am choosing to regulate my intake. I don’t see the difference here.
And then to cite the consumer as a potential murderer of the vehicle? While there is reference to some defense, such as poor advertising and minimal media attention, just the mere mention of this notion is wrong. Americans are creatures of habit. We drive, bike, and walk on the right-handed side of the road and dear goodness, if we are placed abroad behind the “wrong” side of the car on the “wrong” side of the street, we are helpless creatures at the mercy of the world. But in the era of inexpensive gas (in comparison to today’s price) and roomy mom-mobiles/SUVs, manufactures expected us to be miraculously welcoming of their new electric car? Yes the minimal press probably had a lot to do with the slow integration into American society, but please. To blame only one party for our slow or complete lack of acceptance is incorrect. We are not ones quick to accept change, even if it is for the “betterment” of our environment.
Capitalism a Negative?
Yes, some believe capitalism to be a “monster”. Fundamentally, it does promote extreme competitiveness – those who work the hardest achieve the most is “supposedly” how it works. But yes, it has its flaws with the greatest one being what the author of “World’s Monster” quotes as “a large scale of inequality and wealth”. However, I believe that Capitalism is one the most self-regulating economic systems, composed of many businesses and corporations involved in the exchange of products for wealth. Yes, I do realize the bureaucracy behind it: hard-working individuals struggle to pay inflated prices for goods necessary to live “the American dream” – prices that are driven higher and higher by these companies and corporations “supporting” capitalism. And these prices are then exacerbated by the politics of tax systems, judicial systems, and other governmental agencies.
But while they call it a “monster” (and rightfully so according to their criteria of judgment), I think it is a system that promotes self-advancement through hard-work, personal determination, and consistent effort to better one’s life. Granted, there are fair shares of greedy businessmen who ruin this model for the majority, establishing a monopoly within various industries that prevent fair competition. But beyond dictatorship or strict socialism, what economic form is “fair” to everyone? In capitalism, at least the participants have the opportunity to take non-physical possessions such as drive and determination and work to turn them into goods of profit, such as manufactured products or services.
But while they call it a “monster” (and rightfully so according to their criteria of judgment), I think it is a system that promotes self-advancement through hard-work, personal determination, and consistent effort to better one’s life. Granted, there are fair shares of greedy businessmen who ruin this model for the majority, establishing a monopoly within various industries that prevent fair competition. But beyond dictatorship or strict socialism, what economic form is “fair” to everyone? In capitalism, at least the participants have the opportunity to take non-physical possessions such as drive and determination and work to turn them into goods of profit, such as manufactured products or services.
Who Killed the EV?
The documentary of “Who Killed The Electric Car” is a prime example of Capitalism in its extreme form. As concerned as the world is about fossil fuel consumption and “going green” these large corporations are limiting the progress of technology so they can earn more capital, like GM did with these EV’s. By taking that giant leap in progress, GM bypassed major oil corporations and vehicle corporations and had the ability to cut them out from making capital.
Although not using fossil fuels and a non-obsolescent car has many benefits, the release of an EV in our current market would produce many negatives. The capitalistic market is a system that maintains itself. GM could have done a service alternative energy sources by releasing the EV but they didn’t because of the “profit is most important” idea fixed within capitalism.
If GM bypassed oil corporations, oil corporations would lose much of their earnings in the automotive market in a relatively short period of time. In turn, this would cause a large and long-term increase in the unemployment pool because so many products rely on oil and petroleum. An electric vehicle would only be the beginning of an increase in technology in the electric energy field. Once a form of technology is invented it rapidly progresses. What was new a week ago is obsolete the next week because technology develops from technology.
If GM released the EV, they would have surpassed other vehicle corporations and forced them to go in the direction of lower production costs to maintain their competition within their market. Therefore the foreign automotive market would cut their labor force, allocate a large expense in the research and development department, outsource their labor, or any combination of the multitude of responses.
Any angle you look at it, GM killed the electric car to maintain a healthy economy instead of a healthy Earth. The exclusion of oil would take a grand scale blow to the vehicle industry and the oil industry. Capitalism is an overwhelming system that governs our most personal decisions as well as the markets we depend on.
Capitalism and Its Discontents
Capitalism seems to be the ideal market within our society, but when examined closely it seems to be the exact opposite. In Schweickart’s essay on Capitalism, you can clearly see the amount of inequality, unemployment, and even overwork among citizens under Capitalism.
In this essay it was said that “if we divide the income of the United States into thirds, we find that the top 10 percent of the populations gets a third, the next 30 percent gets another third, and the bottom 60 percent gets the last third” (92). When looking at these statistics, it is easy to see the inequality among citizens in our country. I am in no way saying that it would be feasible for there to be no extremely poor, or no extremely rich. There is obviously going to be a divide among income and classes, but in my opinion, things need to be modified so that this distribution among income is more equal.
Unemployment is also a large issue that is continually growing in the United States, as well as every other country in the world. It seems to be a new growing problem for the United States since we are not used to this term “unemployment.” Schweickart says that capitalism requires unemployment, and this may be the case, but shouldn’t our economy find a better system that would require less unemployment than capitalism? One way in which the U.S could slow its unemployment rate would be to stop shipping jobs to overseas plants in order to reduce costs. In return, if these jobs were not shipped overseas, what would the people in these countries do for work? There must be a middle ground that can be reached.
With so many people in the world, how is it possible that we would ever have the problem of overwork? Although I do not agree with it, it makes sense in a capitalist economy. The more competitive that the economy becomes, the more that companies push harder for their workers to work longer hours in order to get things done. If the current workers do not want to work the long hours, they are simply fired, and replaced by the many people standing in line waiting to receive a job. With our economy continually becoming more and more competitive, something needs to be done in order for this “overwork” to stop.
In this essay it was said that “if we divide the income of the United States into thirds, we find that the top 10 percent of the populations gets a third, the next 30 percent gets another third, and the bottom 60 percent gets the last third” (92). When looking at these statistics, it is easy to see the inequality among citizens in our country. I am in no way saying that it would be feasible for there to be no extremely poor, or no extremely rich. There is obviously going to be a divide among income and classes, but in my opinion, things need to be modified so that this distribution among income is more equal.
Unemployment is also a large issue that is continually growing in the United States, as well as every other country in the world. It seems to be a new growing problem for the United States since we are not used to this term “unemployment.” Schweickart says that capitalism requires unemployment, and this may be the case, but shouldn’t our economy find a better system that would require less unemployment than capitalism? One way in which the U.S could slow its unemployment rate would be to stop shipping jobs to overseas plants in order to reduce costs. In return, if these jobs were not shipped overseas, what would the people in these countries do for work? There must be a middle ground that can be reached.
With so many people in the world, how is it possible that we would ever have the problem of overwork? Although I do not agree with it, it makes sense in a capitalist economy. The more competitive that the economy becomes, the more that companies push harder for their workers to work longer hours in order to get things done. If the current workers do not want to work the long hours, they are simply fired, and replaced by the many people standing in line waiting to receive a job. With our economy continually becoming more and more competitive, something needs to be done in order for this “overwork” to stop.
Libertarianism
In John Hospers essay on Libertarianism, he claims that individuals own their own lives, and they therefore have the right to act as they choose unless their actions interfere with the liberty of others to act as they choose. I agree with Hospers in this aspect of his essay. He gives many compelling arguments that point in this direction and show why individuals should be free to live their own lives and act as they so choose.
I must admit that when I first read this essay, Hospers idea on individuals was somewhat foreign to me, and I seemed to automatically reject the idea. As I read more and more of the essay, it all started to make sense in my head. There is a paragraph in which Hospers says things such as “Do you want to occupy, rent-free, the mansion that another man has worked for twenty years to buy?” or “Do you want to have free medical care at the expense of other people, whether they wish to provide it or not?” My immediate answer to these questions was of course, but as Hospers’ essay went on I saw the point in which he was trying to make. In order to live in that mansion, rent-free, or have the opportunity for free medical care, we would dispose of someone else’s life, and we as individual human being are not eligible to decide another’s life for them. The more that Hospers reiterated this message throughout the reading, the more and more that I agreed with it. Who am I to claim the hard work, or fruitful products of another individual? Hospers gives a great example of this when he describes two men, title man A and man B. Man A works extremely hard to be promoted to a well paid professional, while man B spends his money wastefully and then has none left. When man B gets sick, he demands that the government pay his bills because he has no money. This means that man A must pay man B’s bills in taxes. Why should the hardworking people of America be punished for the laziness of others? This idea comes full circle in that we cannot tell other individuals how to run their lives, and that includes telling them how they should spend their money. To me, this also means that we should not be held responsible if they choose to spend it inefficiently. I know that I do not want to be paying for the laziness of my fellow Americans.
I must admit that when I first read this essay, Hospers idea on individuals was somewhat foreign to me, and I seemed to automatically reject the idea. As I read more and more of the essay, it all started to make sense in my head. There is a paragraph in which Hospers says things such as “Do you want to occupy, rent-free, the mansion that another man has worked for twenty years to buy?” or “Do you want to have free medical care at the expense of other people, whether they wish to provide it or not?” My immediate answer to these questions was of course, but as Hospers’ essay went on I saw the point in which he was trying to make. In order to live in that mansion, rent-free, or have the opportunity for free medical care, we would dispose of someone else’s life, and we as individual human being are not eligible to decide another’s life for them. The more that Hospers reiterated this message throughout the reading, the more and more that I agreed with it. Who am I to claim the hard work, or fruitful products of another individual? Hospers gives a great example of this when he describes two men, title man A and man B. Man A works extremely hard to be promoted to a well paid professional, while man B spends his money wastefully and then has none left. When man B gets sick, he demands that the government pay his bills because he has no money. This means that man A must pay man B’s bills in taxes. Why should the hardworking people of America be punished for the laziness of others? This idea comes full circle in that we cannot tell other individuals how to run their lives, and that includes telling them how they should spend their money. To me, this also means that we should not be held responsible if they choose to spend it inefficiently. I know that I do not want to be paying for the laziness of my fellow Americans.
Friday, September 19, 2008
World's Monster
Capitalism like to say are "putting their money to work"(Parenti ,8). Here, I would like to talk about capitalism. How capitalism develop? Who is working behind capitalism? What is the impact of capitalism to human being? As we all know, capitalism is usually related to profit making and free market. Capitalism tends to do everything as long as they get a worth profit for their earnest. Capitalism has a propensity to generate large scale inequality of income and wealth. Capitalism is always concerned in cutting costs, expending markets, and developing new product. However, indirectly capitalism has a good side, as the capitalism concern about all those things above, the market will develop more competitively. Other companies dare to win the market and produce a better and cheaper product. But, on the other side of view, as the product prices drop off, for sure the workers income will be cut off in order to balance the company's outcomes.
I like to say that capitalism is a cruel organization as they are likely to force the workers to work overtime. Since there are more competitive economy develops, this means that workers have to work more and more even though there are generally technological innovations. Is this fair for us as a human being? As an employer, workers' welfare should be put on the first rank in order to create a better work environment. Actually capitalism is depending on the demand of the goods being produced. As long as there is the demand, capitalism will continuously 'alive'. Here, as we can see, we are totally being controlled by a 'monster' which created by ourselves. Should we need to let this 'monster' control our economy forever? Do we have the rights to do that?
I like to say that capitalism is a cruel organization as they are likely to force the workers to work overtime. Since there are more competitive economy develops, this means that workers have to work more and more even though there are generally technological innovations. Is this fair for us as a human being? As an employer, workers' welfare should be put on the first rank in order to create a better work environment. Actually capitalism is depending on the demand of the goods being produced. As long as there is the demand, capitalism will continuously 'alive'. Here, as we can see, we are totally being controlled by a 'monster' which created by ourselves. Should we need to let this 'monster' control our economy forever? Do we have the rights to do that?
Libertarianism
In Hospers article he is defending the core ideals of libertarianism. One of which I am going to be arguing against is the “appropriate function of government is to protecting human rights.”
Reading the article it is understood that Hospers believes that each person control’s their life. Thus, it is up to the person to act their life out. The individual cannot control (influence) another’s life. Their life is their responsibility and therefore if they infringe on other peoples life the government steps in and act in accordance to this belief. Meaning that the government should be some form of security, which is the only role the government should hold, in Hospers belief.
This belief within libertarianism is not valid in that the government should provide security while upholding a free-market capitalistic society, which Hospers believes is the economic answer to freedom. If capitalism is a system where profit making is the initiative then personal interference with another’s life is inevitable. Morality in a capitalistic system does not exist. It is what is beneficial to the individual. Therefore, such current government restrictions placed on corporations such as quality control would not exist. Government is a necessary function that maintains our economic and our morality. Also, as we move into a hypermobile capitalistic system, capital is taking other forms in non-U.S countries. With a system of government only providing a “nightwatchmen” form of security, there is no unifying system that controls those corporations that outsource their commodity. Thus government is a necessary system that must stretch beyond protecting human rights in order to support our capitalistic way of life.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
RIGHTS
Most people believe that rights are something which connected to an individual and cannot be taken away by others. This means that, everyone has their own rights to do whatever they wish and no one can take other's life. Right is actually has a connection between deontology as deontology concerns to treat people as they are human. In general we can classify deontology as duty and moral obligation. As we accomplish our moral obligation to others this means we fully understand and respect people rights. Here, we can see right is commonly describing the relation among people.
The traditional answer on where rights come from is that rights thought to be naturally connected to human. People believe that rights are naturally gifted to them by God. A person has the right to life, liberty and property. Personally, I agree with the thought because as we all know there is no law or constitutions which stated that a person rights is belong to anyone else. I prefer that rights are universal and available to everyone all over the world as long as no one interrupts into a person's life. However, by determining rights come from nature does not assist in specifying which right does person has. In contrasts, one can argue that rights are related to political system as rights can be created by political law and role of government. Based on libertarians, government should play their role on protecting the citizen against violence by other person. Beyond that, government should not interrupt into individual's personal life. Political system also commonly connected with law. Law could be sorted into three parts: law protecting individual against themselves, law protecting individual against violence by other and law to help one another, such as welfare. Libertarians totally reject the first and the third law, as they said there are no such laws against turn out to be drunk or intoxicated, it is a personal's affair and decision. Libertarians also said that, there no rule that individual should help others. Person should not depend on other attempt and effort to lead their life. There are no such "free" in this world; everything is valuable and need effort to get into it.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The American Dream
America is acclaimed for being the land of opportunity - a place where any man, regardless of birth standing, can attain great heights through sheer strength of will and determination. Fundamental to the meteoric rises that characterize the successful attainment of the American Dream is the Dream itself, the notion that one day a person may be capable of providing for himself and his dependents the modern version of the 1950's "two cars, a house with a well manicured lawn, and a dog" lifestyle. In the 2008 election cycle, as has been the case in many previous election cycles, questions have arisen as to the nature of the best manner to aid the American people in achieving such dreams. The Republican Party and Senator John McCain espouse values that are close but not identical to those of Hospers, while the Democratic Party and Senator Barack Obama are more in line with the writings of Dewey.
The rationale behind the traditionally liberal and Democratic platform of considerable taxation is outlined in the Dewey reading. Behind this approach is the mentality that the aggregate is of greater import than the components – the sum is greater than the parts. Dewey and Democrats contend that everything we wish to achieve is inexorably bound to the fate of the group. Thus, in order for the greatest number of us to enjoy the fruits of the American Dream, some must bear a greater share of the burden in promoting so high a standard of life. For example, the recently vogue issue of universal health care promises coverage to all in need, coverage provided by the collective taxpayers of America. It is beyond dispute that many individuals will be receiving coverage without contributing a commensurate amount to the collective pot.
Such a situation is absolutely inexcusable to proponents of the theory espoused by Hospers. In order to compensate for those incapable of contributing to the aforementioned pot, others must contribute a greater amount. Hospers would contend that such a situation impinges upon the greater contributor's personal freedoms, an action which should never occur. Though the Republican platform does not go as far as Hospers in saying that even such commonly regarded necessities as education should not be state funded, it does support him in drawing a line before universal health care.
Although the thought of 47 million Americans going to sleep every night without health insurance is truly disheartening, universal health care is not the solution. In order to truly solve the problem, job training and other methods of battling unemployment and apathy must be implemented. The teaching of superior fiscal responsibility is additionally necessary to ensure that individuals are not paying for wants before needs (such as food and health care). I cannot help but feel that the implementation of a universal health care system is simply an unassuming step towards a larger, more overbearing government. America was designed as a country where a man possesses as much freedom as he rightfully can, and the implementation of this policy would be a step away from those worthy ideals of old.
Response to Parenti
Parenti's so-called "imperialism" is anything but. Imperialism incites images of one nation conquering and subduing another, which is clearly not the intent nor the result of capitalist economic outreach to developing areas. By providing meaningful jobs and gainful employment to denizens of these secluded and impoverished regions, capitalism is improving the quality of life in those countries. Economically speaking, the real GDP per capita is the benchmark upon which quality of life is based. By investing in factories and training indigenous peoples, capitalism is greatly augmenting the GDP of nations, which serves to improve the quality of life. Where imperialism is the subjugation of peoples, capitalism is the empowerment of peoples.
Additionally, Parenti's argument regarding capitalism's destruction of indigenous cultures is ludicrous. Asia boasts one of the fastest growing continental economies (nearly all of which is rooted in a capitalistic system), and yet Asian traditions are flourishing. Indeed, capitalism provides opportunity and opens the eyes of previously remote peoples to the wonders of modern technology, and yields incentive for a modern livelihood.
Parenti spends a great deal of time haranguing the west for past imperialistic behavior. Past instances of exploitation are merely the result of mankind's thirst for betterment. Had the contemporary residents of developing nations been powerful enough to prevent European exploitation, they would have. It is nonsensical to chastise European powers for taking that which was so readily available – just as it is silly to scold a child for eating a cookie when you place it well within his grasp. This is the incentive for success – to the victor, goes the spoils. Thus is the nature of mankind - a characteristic neither positive nor negative. Upon observance of British exploitation of American colonies, America rose against the most powerful nation in the world and succeeded in earning independence. Never has there been a greater underdog victory in human history. America's iron and unyielding resolve in the face of ever growing adversity allowed her triumph over the finest military of the time. America succeeded in defeating an entrenched foe - other nations to fall victim to imperialism were simply incapable of defending themselves from outside invasion, an ability that is absolutely fundamental to autonomy.
Parenti further focuses to near exclusivity on Western imperialism, which he then parallels to the Western development of capitalism. He completely disregards the truth that for nearly all of human history, the conquest of one's neighbors has been a crowning glory. He chastises the West for asserting itself over the East, but makes no mention of the imperialism of the Huns and the great Chinese emperors of yore, or that of the Aztecs and the Mayans. Imperialistic behavior is not the exclusive domain of the West over the East as he attempts to declare.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)