Blog Week 6 - Marx and Carnegie

 Marx and Carnegie

1.) The bourgeois is the richer business owners.  They control everything because they can control the money of a country and have control over all businesses which means they control.  They are the bosses.  The proletarians are the working class.  They are the people controlled by the bourgeoisie and their businesses.  Since they have no money to start up their own businesses, they can't have any control over their work.  It is a vicious cycle to keep everyone in their current economic status so they can't take over.

2.) Expanding the world market leads to an increase in the needs of goods.  That is turn also increases the bourgeois.  In order to cover the demand, businesses would have to increase and at that point, the bourgeois has pushed all other classes down that they would benefit the most and continue to grow their wealth.  For a nation, Marx thought expanding would just cause a bigger wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

3.) Marx thought communism would help the proletarians overthrow the bourgeois.  It would cause the rich to help and give to the poor which would decrease the power the bourgeois has over the proletarians.  By decreasing the wealth gap, everyone will have more equal opportunities and Marx thought this would great a healthier nation.

4.) I do think people should follow what Carnegie says.  Giving to the poor will help create a more prosperous country and will help everyone to have the same opportunities as everyone else.  I also feel that what Bill Gates is doing will help to solve the problem of the rich vs. the poor.  The wealth gap in this country is huge and if everyone gave a little to help their neighbor, our country would be better off.  However, if it is to truly work, the country needs to focus less on how much money we have and worry more about if those countries around us need help.  We need to learn that if other countries are failing, no matter how prosperous the United States is, we are still affected by other countries.

Blog 5 Aristotle and Tocqueville

  

 Aristotle and Tocqueville

1.)  Aristotle would have approved of the picture of the men working on the Constitution.  The men was working on a way for the government to have power over the states and Aristotle approves of that.  All Aristotle wanted was a government that was far and just and one that allowed all the citizens to have a say in how the government was being run.  Since that is what the men were trying to accomplish in the picture, Aristotle would have like the picture.

2.) The painting represent most of the elements of society.  The man standing who is George Washington is clearly the President and the leader of the government.  The other men on stage with him represent the rest of the government that oversee the citizens.  Everyone else in the room represent the common people.  In society they are the citizens.  The citizens are calling out to the government with their opinions and what they want to see happen.  It is at the core the basic way that our representative democracy works.

3.) Aristotle would have assumed that the government they were creating was a democracy.  The picture shows some people sitting that all seem to be equal to the others.  Also the picture shows that everyone is able to speak their mind.  That is something Aristotle felt very strongly about because that would show that everyone had a say in the government.

4.) The men well represented the white men of the country.  They were all wronged by Great Britain and the men wanted changes to occur so they made the change happen themselves.  However, the men did not represent all of society since a lot of the citizens were either women or slaves and those citizens did not have any representation at the Constitutional Convention.  Since they were not represented, any citizens other then men were not included in the Constitution fairly.

5.) Tocqueville felt similar to that of Aristotle.  Tocqueville came to the United States to gain a deeper knowledge and understanding of the government that we had here.  Both of them wanted a government that was fair and equal to all its citizens.  Tocqueville found some of that here but the government that they both want does not exist today.  We however can get close and that is what both men wanted.

Blog Week 4 - King and Cicero

      

 King and Cicero

1.) King's view is very similar to that of Henry David Thoreau.  Both men feel that it is the duty of the people to disobey laws created by the government if they deem them to be unjust.  I also feel that both of them wanted to achieve their goals with nonviolence.  They believed that would be the best way to achieve their goal.  I do believe that King ready Thoreau's Civil Disobedience to study the ideas of morality and immorality.  In doing so, I think it helped King to better understand the goal he was striving for; to have equality for all by just laws made by the government.  However, I think one of the major differences between their beliefs was the King still wanted to have a government that ruled over the people.  He just wanted one that had fair and just laws for everyone it ruled over.  Thoreau, on the other hand, wanted a government that stepped back and governed less.  He felt that the best way for the government to rule over its people was to have a more hands off approach.

2.) Cicero's "The Defense of Injustice" talks about what it really means to be just.  The two characters in the story argue back and forth about their definition of just.  Cicero does this to show us that justice is always changing and their really isn't a definition of it.  It is hard for there to be an exact explanation for something when everyone has a different view of it.  So, how can we judge when someone is acting just if everyone thinks differently about acting just.  As Cicero says that justice is always changing, we can see that in today's society when the government gave women the right to vote or through the civil rights movement.  However, Cicero also wants to get the point across that if we acted justly, history would not have changed for the better.  Sometimes it takes people acting unjustly to make major change happen.  Nevertheless, as we have gotten closer to a definition of justice everyone agrees upon, people will continue to act in the way they best feel is just.

Blog 3 - Thoreau

Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"

1.) Thoreau talks about one of the values of government is the fact that they make laws to please the majority.  They listen to what a majority of the country thinks should be happening.  The government thinks this is the best way to run a democracy.  The problem with running the government that way is not everyone has a say if they go against the masses which causes the government to not properly represent all of the citizens.  The government treats matters of justice, ethics and morality that goes along with what the masses feel.  A lot of time, the government will make laws that are unjust for some people.  Thoreau says in that case that it is the responsibility of the citizens to disobey those laws then.  Thoreau also talks about how too much respect for the government hurts causes people to do unjust things.  If someone trusts the government whole heartedly, they are resistant to question what they are doing.  It causes people to become complacent and they are less likely to disobey unjust laws.  The government of Thoreau's time is similar to the government of today because they still want people to be complacent and not question what they are doing.  The government is only worried about pleasing the majority rather than doing what is write.

2.)  The annexation of Texas was the main reason for the Mexican-American war.  Mexico and America was fighting over where the border between the two countries should be and the status of Texas.  President Polk at the time was not good of informing the U.S. citizens what was happening.  He was trying to keep them in the dark and work without needing the permission of the United State population.  That is what Thoreau was worried about with the government.  He felt it was unethical for the government to do whatever they wanted without limitations from the people which is what Polk was doing at the time of the war.  This war helped people believe what Thoreau was saying in his reaction to the government.

Blog 2 Rousseau and Jefferson

Rousseau and Jefferson

1.) Rousseau believes in the social contract theory. The government and the people have a give and take relationship. They both rely on each other and both are in a known contract. The government must keep the rights of the people safe and the people must be willing to follow the rules of the government set for them when they are represented correctly. Rousseau believes a direct democracy would be the best form of government. He feels that everyone who wants to have a say in the government should have the right to. In order for each person to have their natural rights protected, they have to be able to have a little control over it. Each individual represents themselves, no elected officials to represent a group of people. Rousseau felt this was the best way to make sure everyone had representation.

The closest thing to a direct democracy we have today is the government in the United States. We have a representative democracy where the people vote on who represents them. A direct democracy would most likely not work in today’s society because the population is too big that there would be no way to organize all of the people’s opinions. There are also too many things to vote on in today’s world that nothing would get done if everyone had to vote for each law to be passed. We have representatives that we feel will protect our natural rights for us. The goal of this type of government was to bring order and make it easier to rule the country but still allow everyone to have some say in what happens in their country.

2.) The declaration claims that it is the duty of the colonists to rebel against the British government.  Jefferson thought it was their responsibility to do what is best for their country.  That included getting rid of a government that did not have their best interest in heart.  Jefferson stated that a rebellion would be the only way to get rid of British rule and would gain independence for the United States.  Jefferson said the colonists had to be willing to do anything to gain their independence.  In his eyes, gaining independence justified their means of war to get it if needed.  Also Jefferson would have agreed with Machiavelli that at times, one needs to take extreme measures to get what they want.  The Declaration of Independence shows this by stating that the colonists are willing to do anything to get their independence.

I agree with Jefferson that sometimes the ends justify the means.  In extreme cases, like a country trying to gain their independence, sometimes war has to be fought in order to win.  No great victory in history has been accomplished without some violence.  We as a society get so set in our ways that humans don't like to change.  In order for some changes to happen, extreme measures have to be taken.  I somewhat agree with Lao Tzu that violence needs to be part of the last resort, but the colonists needed a last resort in order to free themselves.  I feel that is how it is with most major changes in history, they had to go to their last resort to accomplish their goals.