TOPIC: The Social Contract
The concept of the "social contact" is one that was highly supported by many philosophes of the Enlightenment era, especially America's Founding Fathers. It is loosely defined as the implicit agreement between a government and its people. In this agreement, citizens "give up" certain rights they are "born with" in order to receive the stability of civil society and thus get to enjoy the additional freedoms and privileges that come with living in a stable state.
-How many and what type of rights should the individual "give up" for the security of civil society? Apply this to the recent scandal of the NSA "spying" on the American Public. Should the NSA be able to access our personal means of communication? Is that worth it to protect us from terrorism?
-At what point does the concept of the "social contract" begin the encroach upon your sense of individualism? Should we look at society as one big team? Or every man/woman/child for himself?
-The concept best applies to our current debate on gun control. How should this issue be addressed? How does the concept of the Social Contact play into this?
-How far should the ideals of the Enlightenment extend? Voltaire sure loved freedom of speech, but are pure freedoms dangerous? How does that affect our modern society with the advent of the internet? Should some groups be limited in their use of free speech? Hate groups, creepy NAMBLA type groups?
You are required to post and must directly engage another student. I am grading based on quality and amount of interaction, so post away! Remember to use the reply function when reponses to specific people/topics. Engage with your fellow AP Worlders and debate! Use as much evidence from the readings and any other research to back your claims!
GO!
REMEMBER: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! ANY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND PUNISHED.
ALSO: IF YOUR IDENTITY IS NOT COMPLETELY EVIDENT IN YOUR SCREEN NAME, YOU WON'T GET CREDIT!
ONE LAST THING: Don't write essays nor address every questions in one post. Spread it out and make your posts short enough that people will actually read them and address them. Remember to use the reply function!
I will post addition questions throughout the weekend. Keep an eye out for that!
The idea of the NSA collecting our information, while uncomfortable is acceptable for three reasons. One, at some point that information will be used to protect Americans – information about potential terrorist attacks will naturally have to come through some form of technological communication. Two, collected information is not reviewed without probable cause-; Private emails and search histories are safe for the average citizen. Three, the fact that we are allowed to have this conversation is a protection in of itself. By freely acknowledging that information is being gathered, we will, as a society, be capable of recognizing if certain groups are being unnecessarily targeted.
ReplyDelete- Jaclyn Bernstein
Period 4/5
I somewhat agree with Jackie with the idea that the NSA collecting our information is to a certain degree acceptable. As Jackie said, yes it’s uncomfortable for people to know that our personal information is being collected and being read by a group of “strangers.” It’s debatable whether or not the idea of the social contract still exists in today’s society, but logically speaking our society has become one where in order to get something there must be an exchange or a certain sacrifice. However, at the same time I also think that the NSA should only access our personal information only if it pertains to whatever case they’re investigating. If the NSA were to have free access to our personal information all the time it would be like “an invasion of privacy.” Some people argue that the NSA’s telephone metadata program violates one part of the Constitution, because there’s no law allowing anyone to have a bulk of collection of telephone record data.
DeleteI think the Bill of Rights would be a good representation of a theoretical social contract between the people and the U.S. government. After all, the Bill’s original intention was to limit the power of the government. As Locke said, when a government is functioning contrary to the well-being of the people, the people have the right to a better government. The NSA is a clear violation of the right to privacy and is consequently a violation of the social contract (at least in the eyes of most people). The fact that many of the activities of the NSA were kept secret causes many people to lose trust in the government. People may appreciate any protection the services of the NSA could offer, but according to recent polls a majority of people do not. Your third point is definitely true though, but I don’t necessarily agree that some rights should be prioritized over others. Although the Bill of Rights may be a good representation of a social contract, the social contract should be left abstract because some rights conflict with each other and everything can be interpreted differently. I think a good rule of thumb is if the government wants to do illicit things, it’s better to have the agreement of the population rather than doing it behind its back.
DeleteFor reasons significantly more pertinent than mere discomfort, the NSA's practices are perfect examples of misuse of the social contract. Your first point is untrue; the NSA's surveillance is ineffective and lacks cost-efficiency. First, the NSA completely failed in preventing the Boston Bombings, despite warnings from the Russian Security Service in March 2011 that implicated Tamerlan Tsarnaev as "a follower of radical Islam." (Note this is not Islamophobic because the RSS noted that Tsarnaev's beliefs had changed rapidly, a red flag). With this information in mind, we really need to question if the NSA is an organization that will be ultimately beneficial. Also, you mention that the information collected by the NSA will protect Americans in the future. How, then, do you justify the wire-tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone? You may argue that all information is valuable to Americans, but this specific instance damaged U.S. foreign relations with Germany. Why should we surrender our privacy and money to an organization that is inefficient and, in some cases, harmful? Your second point about probable cause is false. A study conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice found that the NSA, in many cases, has practiced surveillance without probable cause: “the agency had broken privacy rules thousands of times in the previous twelve months, including acquiring information on more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders and using search terms for communications that were guaranteed to yield many communications with no connection to terrorism.” NSA analysts have also misused the agency’s surveillance systems to spy on spouses or romantic interests.” These astonishing results invalidate your argument and indubitably show that the NSA, or at least the way it is being run now, is a waste of resources. The NSA is publicly funded, and some may argue that paying one’s taxes is a sacrifice stipulated by the social contract. I agree. Let’s just pay our taxes to something that a) works and b) is a prominent issue, like cancer, the threat of which is far greater than that of terrorism.
DeleteI agree with Drew's points. If the NSA's invasion of privacy was beneficial to the nation then both the cost and fear would be worth it. However, since the practices have shown to be ineffective, there is little to no point. The obvious violation of privacy protected by the constitution for little to no reward is unnecessary. Though I agree with Jackie in that most Americans are probably not being watched by the NSA, the fear of the general public that they could be watched is just an unwarranted scare tactic. The end does not justify the means.
DeleteI believe that the NSA's surveillance is acceptable and actually is effective. Though it has had some slip ups like the Boston Bombing, consider how few events like that we have honestly had. Are you sure that without them we wouldn't have had far more incidents? Also, I believe that their surveillance is just another part of the social contract. In order to keep us safe, we give up a little more privacy. Yes they took it without asking but if you have nothing to hide, does it really matter that they know about your date with Sally on Sunday?
DeleteAlthough I don’t like the idea of the NSA going through all of my private information, I can’t say that I’m against it. There is, of course, a discrepancy between practice and theory. The NSA admitted to exaggerating their own effectiveness. Instead of thwarting 54 plots, like they originally claimed, they thwarted one or two. As Drew pointed out, the NSA is not being effective with their time and energy. In theory, however, and with the right restrictions, the view into the ‘private’ message of people has the potential to save lives. Like Brandon mentioned, there very well might be slip ups. But if the NSA stopped another 9/11-esque attack, would people really have the same number of complaints? And in the future, they’re making the NSA prove that their phone taps are pertinent to current investigations. As long as there is evidence that there is terrorist activity, I think the government should be able to intervene.
DeleteI agree with Destinee, especially when she mentions that in order to get something in this society there must be an equal exchange. Regarding the NSA I think the exchange is obvious, the government has the power to dig deep into our lives, but in return we can hope that our lives are becoming safer because of this. I think it is worth it to give up some of our personal information to protect our country and it is a good example of what the social contract expects us to “give up.” The social contract was put in place to defend and protect and I think that is what the NSA aims for.
DeleteBrandon, have you considered the fact that there have been so few incidents is not because of NSA actions but because of the relative lack of terrorism in general in the US? And while you may not mind the government reading about your date with Sally on Sunday consider that an undisclosed amount of money (estimated to be about 10 BILLION dollars) is spent on a program that has not been proven to effective. Imagine if those ten billion dollars or even just a small part were instead spent on clinical drug trials, neuro-research and pediatric cancer. Wouldn’t you rather have your hard earned tax money spent on developing a cure for the cancer that Sally could be diagnosed with on Monday?
DeleteEric, while your idea could be correct, I feel as though it is unlikely that the amount of terrorism in the US happens to be that low. The problem with saying that the NSA is ineffective, or effective really, is that we don't know how many they managed to stop. Despite that, I feel confident that it is more than the 49 'homegrown' terrorist attempts mentioned in a CNN article that were stopped by normal police forces. As for the 10 Billion given to the program, are you aware that the United States gives $188,776,927 (from the EWG farm Subsidy Database) to subsidize tobacco? Granted, that is far less than a program that might not work, I'd rather give them a lot of money as an extra amount of security just in case than pay farmers to produce a carcinogen. That way Sally might not have gotten cancer in the first place.
DeleteYeah but you can't assume Sally got cancer from smoking cigarettes. How do you know Sally didn't contract a rare form of lung cancer that only like .01% of people in the world get? Sally might just be unlucky, but now she's super unlucky because the government is more concerned with the terrorists than they are with Sally, and so Sally now has this rare affliciton and can't get the proper help. And you say you're okay with the government knowing about your date with Sally, but how do you know Sally is on board? Never kiss and tell. Sally might feel that her privacy has been completely violated, and you have to respect her wishes as a boyfriend. Sally has a say in this, too.
DeleteThe NSA’s monitoring the American public is definitely worth sacrificing some privacy for the safety of the citizens. We take for granted the everyday protection that the government provides, which most of the time brings success that goes unnoticed. Some privacy rights have been sacrificed in the past, but now with the NSA scandal, the issues have brought to light and interpreted as an invasion by the government. Although every person has the natural right to privacy, living in a safe society requires precautions to be taken. Also, the government isn’t blindly searching through all of our Internet activity and communication, but instead looking for terrorist activity. Many people are arguing that the people have the right to a better government, yet when they try to ensure the safety of the country, the people cast criticism. The privacy violation isn’t that troubling because normal day-to-day activity will not be reviewed with harsh probable cause. Overall, I think the safety assurance outweighs the loss of petty internet monitoring.
DeleteJaclyn, I agree with you. Our privacy is being compromised but if you don't have anything to hide, it shouldn't be a big deal. Especially if this "spying" could save lives. I don't think the term "spying" is appropriate in this context. The government is listening in on phone calls and other forms of communication for red flags only. What we have to make sure of is that the government doesn't get too into personal matters. Don't get me wrong, it's sad that it has come to the point that the government has to listen in on phone calls, creating trust issues between the people and their government. My point is that this is a direct result of terrorism like 9/11. If the NSA were "spying" during that time, there's a greater chance that thousands of people could have been saved that day. This does start to intrude on our individualism because it is intruding on our privacy. In this case, I believe it is worth it to give up some of our freedoms because in the long run, it could save our lives. Society is one big team but it is filled with "team members" that are out for themselves. I think it is important for Americans to give up some privacy for the greater good of the community, nation, and ultimately the world.
DeleteYes, Brandon, I am aware of the ridiculous spending of the bureaucracy we call government. In fact, in 2013 alone our government subsidized a $385,000 study on duck genitalia, spent $34 million dollars on an used military facility and $376 million on white house renovations. Reducing extraneous spending is an important albeit unrelated issue. I agree with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board which concluded that “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation.” Maybe even though both you and Sally may not find the egregious privacy invasion of the NSA an issue, your “peace of mind” can easily be mistaken for ignorance. The NSA as far as I’m concerned is just as much security theater as the TSA. In both programs Americans, like you and Sally, give up rights without ever contemplating if the government is upholding its end of the bargain. On the topic of privacy issues, while a trifling Sunday date with Sally may not be a sensitive issue, imagine a culture where people fear to express their opinions both publicly and privately (which exists less and less due to the NSA program). Is an all knowing government one that stimulates diverse thought, creativity and continual progress or exactly the opposite? Lastly, what if your innocent date with Sally is mistaken by NSA surveillance agents to be a meeting by a terror groups? How do you feel knowing that Sally can be labeled a a terrorist?
DeletePersonally, I think the government being able to listening in on phone calls and read emails and private conversations obstructs our privacy and infringes on our rights as citizens of the United States. However, I believe that not everyone in the United States is a good, moral person. Thus, the precautions that the government takes is reasonable only if needed and there is proof of the government suspicions. I agree with what Corinne said about personal matters. We, as citizens, need to watch the government and make sure it uses the NSA for looking for terrorist and not for personal use. The goal here is to make a more peaceful and safer world for all human beings; therefore, the use of the NSA I guess is rational.
DeleteI agree with Eric and Sam. I don’t appreciate this unnecessary spending by our government. I am okay with the government watching me but I don’t understand why my every move is relevant to a potential terrorist attack. Why does the government need to pay to monitor my phone calls when after a while they can determine that I am not a threat? I am willing to allow the government to intervene and temporarily give up some of my rights in order to stop a terrorist attack, but I don’t think the government should waste time worrying about my life (or Sally’s) unless it is relevant to what they are working on. I understand that the government doesn’t know everything because it’s just not possible. The government cannot protect every American citizen. The Social Contract is a good idea, but I don’t want to give up my rights unless the government has probable cause to confiscate them. It makes me uncomfortable to know that if anything happens and someone infiltrates the NSA that some creepy stranger would have all of the information the United States could possibly give him. I don’t want all of my information on a database for access whenever it’s needed just because. I think there needs to be more detail in the Social Contract. I am perfectly content with the government using my information to protect me and others, but I am not happy with the government is hoarding my information just in case.
DeleteI agree with Eric, Sam, and Julia. I think that the government shouldn't be looking into my life and I certainly think that it infringes upon my rights. Additionally, I think that the whole thing is ineffective because how is the government supposed to sift through all that information and pick out what could actually be a threat? The government knew about what was going to happen at Pearl Harbor but they had so much information they had no idea what was true and important, and what was false. If the government had access to everyone's information, how will this system be effective? Also, for a system that is supposed to keep me safe,it makes me feel threatened. If one thing I say can be construed as a threat, all of a sudden the government will have the right to dig up all the information available on me. That is super creepy, and it violates my rights. I also disagree with what Destinee and Kate were saying about an exchange for protection. I think it's the government's job to protect us; they shouldn't be asking for my rights in exchange for them to actually do their job. I love America but I hate our government right now.
DeleteI agree with Corrine. It’s pretty unsettling to think that the government is tuned into our private conversations and no one really enjoys that idea. But it seems like a necessary measure when it come to national security. If monitoring our conversations can protect the nation from terrorism, citizens should give up some parts of their rights. Even if the government failed to protect the nation from Pearl Harbor or the Boston Marathon bombing, at least they are learning from their mistakes and trying to improve national security. No one wants to see another 9/11 or Boston Marathon occur, so if the government must have access to our personal means of communication, so be it. This seems to be the only rational compromise in my opinion.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it’s impossible to say how many or what types of rights should be given up for a secure society. Sure, some people say that guns should be banned, but someone can kill with a gun as easily as one can kill with a knife. If guns were banned, then police officers cannot use them, it’d be illegal to manufacture firearms in the US, therefore making us an overall weaker country. Likewise, it’s impossible to narrow down individual rights to “can have” and “can’t have”. It provides unnecessary power to the government.
DeletePersonally, I don’t see any justification for the NSA to spy on the public. I understand that there’s always “just in case they find someone dangerous” idea to it, but it’s illogical. If they took someone into custody because of a suspicious email or phone call, they have no choice but to provide that email or phone call as evidence. Therefore, they reveal that they invaded personal privacy of an individual, which is looked down upon by society. People get thrown into jail by violating the personal privacy of others, so I think that law should apply to those who work for the NSA. They’re violating personal privacy, but people think that because they’re the NSA, it’s alright. I don’t think so.
The government was created “by the people and for the people”, right? So if it’s “for the people”, the government has an obligation to protect us. Why do I have to give up my rights because the government can’t do it’s JOB? Like Rachel said, people can feel threatened by the NSA’s work. If one mindless statement on a computer constitutes me as a threat, the government can look up whatever information they want on me. That’s not right. I don’t think many people would be comfortable with saying that because then they could suddenly be targeted by the NSA.
The money collected towards an ineffective organization can be put to better use. Companies stop developing products because they’re no longer beneficial to the company, so why shouldn’t the government cut off ineffective groups from funding? Put the money towards something useful, like medical research. The NSA didn’t stop 9/11, the NSA didn’t stop the Boston Bombing, and I don’t recall ever hearing about the NSA actually stopping anything for that matter.
Originally i sided with those arguing against the government tuning in on conversations. I'm aware it goes against our rights and can potentially be a huge waste of money and time since the ratio of terrorist related calls compared to regular phone calls are very, very slim to none. However, then i found out that traces of telephone calls were discovered after the tragic occurred. More so, Washington Post addresses a phone call made by one of the hijackers on 9/11 and goes on to say that, "If we had had this program in place at the time, we would have been able to identify that particular telephone number in San Diego." Thus why this program can be very useful in protecting our nation against terrorists and preventing them from entering the country to begin with.
DeleteJanna, you made a good point in addressing that even if the government got a lead and took someone into custody, they would end up revealing that they invaded personal privacy. However, the information that they gathered in order to take this individual into custody is better than having nothing at all to work with and leaving things unsolved. There are no extremely negative results from this program and I think it could only help. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/23/government-board-report-refutes-911-argument-for-nsa-phone-records-program/
With the recent controversy of the NSA “spying” on Americans, the entire concept of the social contract has been big news. The social contract is created when individuals give up certain rights for the greater good of the society. In this day in age, America is seen as the devil in the eyes of the terrorists; in addition, there are more Americans who are becoming homegrown terrorists and spreading fear among the public. Terrorists generally communicate through either the phone or the internet. For these reasons, the NSA should be allowed to “spy” on Americans for the safety of the nation. According to Rousseau’s The Social Contract, “The first and most important conclusion from the principles we have established thus far is that the general will alone may direct the forces of the State to achieve the goal for which it was founded.” Therefore, by giving up certain rights we would be more protected from foreign and homegrown terrorists, by giving the government the ability to support our demands and our fight against terrorism. In the end, you must ask yourself a question: Am I safer with the government interfering or without?
DeleteI agree with you Allan. I believe it is crucial for our nation to have an organization that seeks to fight terrorism and to stop it before further damage can be done. However based on the social contract we are to give up some of our rights to the government for the greater good of society. this being said i don't feel that the NSA has the right to monitor my every movement and my every breath. I believe that there is a medium that should be established and they shouldn't cross it. Now humans contain greed and with greed comes corruptness and so this scandal that has become so prevalent does make since. the NSA does not have the right to monitor my every text, email, Facebook post, or whatever the case may be….but there definitely needs to be some type of monitoring done to prevent terrorism in the United states.
DeleteI agree with Lauren that there is a very large difference between practice and theory with respect to the NSA. I am comfortable in theory with the NSA collecting all this data in order to protect us from terrorism. However, in reality I have very strong concerns about how it could be used. For example, how do we know that the data will be used only in cases where there is probable cause as opposed to being used as a fishing expedition against political enemies that are not terrorists? I’m also concerned that the spying program, when in the wrong hands, could target personal enemies or look for terrorists based on unfair reasoning, like race.
DeleteEverything the government and NSA are doing they are doing to protect us, which we should rightfully allow dispute of the fact it may impose upon our rights. If you don't want things you say and do to be heard of and seen, then you shouldn't do them in the first place. Just like how colleges can view our Facebooks, Twitter, instagrams and other media, if you're doing something wrong and or inappropriate, the college will see and punish you by not accepting you. Thus why we should be grateful that the NSA is trying to protect us against terrorists and monitor suspicious phone calls, not spy on us.
DeleteLisha, I don't think there is any evidence on this program being used for targeting political enemies. I'm sure it is very strictly run, seeing how big of a deal it is, and it the hands of many. I doubt it would be used for a negative case such as that and go unseen by all those involved. I think this program would do much more good than bad.
Rachel, while I agree with you in principle that the NSA can do more good than bad, it is important to note that just recently the Cincinnati field office of the IRS recently was accused of targeting Tea Party groups. In fact, throughout modern history government has been known to target political enemies. For example, J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the F.B.I., had secret files maintained against his political enemies as well as his allies and used them ruthlessly. Richard Nixon, while he was president, maintained an enemies list and used government in order to attack them. I'd argue that it is quite reasonable to worry that the NSA may be used for ill purposes and I don't think the argument that it is too big of a deal for it to happen is correct, because I'd think that the IRS, F.B.I., and office of the president are just as big of a deal and they've been involved in similar issues.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat about gun laws? This is obviously a hot-button topic in our nation. Would imposing strict gun laws impinge on your personal freedoms, beyond the protections of our social contract? Or does allowing guns and our lack of gun laws impinge on our social contract, since the prevalence of guns creates so many safety issues and compromises our essential "right to life"?
ReplyDeleteLike most of the world, i think this topic is very controversial and can go either way. These views could also differentiate in accordance to whether you agree with Locke or Hobbes view of the social contract. Locke would probably argue that guns shouldn't be allowed since people should give up some personal freedoms to benefit the society. Hobbes may argue the importance of the government protecting one's property and taking away gun's would impede this and could possibly cause rebellion. Since people have different views on of the social contract, people also have different views on whether guns should be permitted.
DeletePersonally, I believe guns should be permitted because they are not always used negatively. While I'm aware people have very negative views on guns and they could cause safety issues and fail to protect the "right to live," i think taking them away would take away people's personal rights. Many people use them for protection or maybe hunting and that is acceptable. I think the government should; however, enforce much stricter background checks on those wishing to purchase guns.
Rachel, I, respectfully, disagree with your viewpoint on gun control. Although the second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms, I believe imposing stricter gun laws would help our nation greatly. The social contract is put into place for the protection of the people, and therefore, it would be appropriate to take away that personal freedom because stricter gun laws would create a safer community. This then is the first issue with the Social Contract. Are the enhanced protections real or just theoretical? If they’re only theoretical, then the community has failed to honor its side of the bargain and shouldn’t expect individuals to honor their side either. Thus, the individual cannot be trusted with guns and that is why I believe, other than the military, guns should be taken out of all public hands.
DeleteI agree with Austin. I think the social contract is for the safety of the people, to protect them and ensure that they will not be harmed. Allowing strict gun laws would create a safer environment for everyone, therefore the social contract would still be in place. Right now, with guns available to most people, everyone has the possibility of being harmed, which is completely going against the purpose of the social contract. Even if people have to submit more information about themselves for a background check to purchase a gun, it is helpful because it is creating an all around safer environment. Imposing stricter gun laws would not impinge on our freedom because according to Locke, giving up certain rights will only “preserve members of that society in their lives, liberties, and possessions.” For example, deeper background checks will go a long way for those trying to purchase guns. It will keep harmful people from obtaining guns, which will help keep society safer.
DeleteI agree with Kate and Austin that the government should enforce stricter gun laws on the American people for our safety. The social contract should protect all Americans as Kate said and guns pose a threat to our safety. One of John Locke's fundamental concepts was that people should give up some of their rights to the government to ensure the prosperity of their society. Whether for protection or hunting purposes, I believe that the presence of guns in our society poses a threat to all people. Although people may use these reasons to justify their ownership, there is no telling whether they will abuse their right to bear arms and harm someone or sell to someone else who will. It is also possible that these weapons may fall into the hands of a child or someone who is not educated or trained, both of whom could potentially harm themselves or others. I believe that the general public should no longer be able to purchase guns and to decrease the number of already owned weapons, the government should put a program in place for buying them back from owners.
DeleteI believe, in a Hobbes-esque sense, that it is the privilege of the individual to own a gun. They can act as an equalizer in society. If everyone was left to their own physical abilities, the strongest would always win- Might is Right. In addition, the people who you wouldn’t want to have guns are probably the same people who would get guns illegally. People need to be able to defend themselves. That said, I also think that we need stricter gun laws concerning gun policy. If someone wants a rifle to protect their house and family, that’s one thing. But no one needs the killing power that comes with the bigger guns that were designed for soldiers like semi-automatics. There’s a big difference between the power and abilities of the two machines, but for the purpose of defense, they’re both fine. In addition, no one needs an excessive amount of weaponry. For most people, one is fine. The government should increase the regulations on amount of guns. The biggest gun problem that the government needs to address is who gets these guns. There may need to be more regulations on the people who are in contact with the weapons. But overall, the actual owning of a gun is a privilege that some people rely on to live where they live.
DeleteAlthough, as you suggested, some people would purchase guns illegally, other people might not have the resources, ability, or money to purchase illegal weapons. The government should at least try and prevent people from purchasing weapons, obviously with the realization that some will acquire them despite their best efforts. Also, when you say that "for the purpose of defense, they're both fine," are you referring to rifles as well as semi-automatic weapons?
DeleteNot only do i think that strict gun laws are a good idea, I believe that it is necessary in our nation. Year after year, there have been shootings in elementary schools, the workplace, and in public, and I'm not saying that these could be totally avoided, but the safety would be greatly increased. Gun laws don't make it impossible to own a gun, there is just a background check before the purchase. Unless you are hiding something, such as a criminal record, or a history of violence in the past, how could this be such a bad thing? Giving up part of your social freedom in order to achieve sanctity among all is a brilliant idea. That is why I think that gun laws should definitely be used.
DeleteI disagree with Austin, Kate, and Emma and believe that gun control policies in general should not be pursued because they 1) are a violation of our rights and 2) have been repeatedly proven to be ineffective and, at times, counter-effective. In the sense that such policies are a violation of our rights, I recognize that there are various interpretations of the second amendment; however, I believe that such policies do directly conflict with the amendment, and I believe that given our nation’s history with guns, a history which required such weaponry to be used for the very establishment of this great nation, my interpretation is quite adequate. As for my second point, multiple studies have found that gun control is simply ineffective. For example, when the U.S. National Academy of Science completed an evaluation, they “failed to identify any type of gun control that had reduced violent crime.” Furthermore, policies such as concealed carry have been incredibly effective at preventing crimes and stopping crimes that have already begun. It has been proven that these laws prevent criminals from initiating attack and even allow citizens to stop the attack before the police can. Clearly if concealed carry has been effective at deterring crime, passing gun control laws would go against this effect. Lastly, gun control policies offer a very simplistic solution to a non-simplistic problem. Violence is determined by certain socio-economic, psychological, and cultural factors, and the conclusion logically follows that violence will obviously still be present without much respect to the availability of a certain type of weaponry. For these reasons, I strongly disagree that gun control policies should be pursued.
DeleteMany of these posts falsely contend that gun control laws equate to societal safety, while there is a litany of facts proving that gun accessibility decreases gun-related crimes. For example, between 2006-2011, in Virginia, gun sales increased by 73%, while gun-related violence decreased by 24%. Norway has Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%) and lowest murder rate. In Russia, where handguns are banned, the murder rate is 30.6%. The murder rate in the United States is 7.8%. To suggest that gun control laws would create a safer society is to ignore these facts. Also, we must consider other gun violence determinants, including socioeconomic status, mental health, and upbringing. Comprehensive gun reformation ignores these highly pertinent factors, implicating guns alone as the cause of violent crime. So, before we give up our right to own guns, which protect us, we should give other entities, like money or time, to help address the cause of violence at its core.
DeleteI believe Locke would disagree with gun restriction because it goes against his thought process that the government can only do so much for itself, and can only infringe upon so many of our laws. Therefore, I agree with Hobbes view of the Social Contract regarding gunz yo.
DeleteWhile the facts and numbers that you used to support your claim were impressive Drew and Mike, I still believe that the crime rate will go down with stricter laws. There is absolutely zero need for an average human being to be legally carrying a gun around, let alone assault rifles. Between 1982 and 2013, the US had roughly 63 mass shootings. Out of those 63 shootings, 50 of them were perpetrated using legal weapons. So how can banning weapons be a bad thing? What, people won’t be able to shoot an occasional deer and hang its skull? In 1996, the Port Arthur massacre left 35 people dead in Australia. The Prime Minister, John Howard, launched perhaps the most aggressive clampdown in gun ownership in history. Around 650,000 weapons were destroyed, and the first decade alone saw a 59% drop in Australian gun-homicides. And mass shootings in that 1st decade? None. Therefore, why not just get rid of guns all together and have a safer society…
DeleteLooking at the social contract and applying it to gun control laws, we need to be careful how we approach it. We can't just generalize and say "gun laws should be stricter in order to make our society safer" or "people have shot up schools because there aren't strict enough gun laws." Locke believed that people should give up certain rights and conform to society. I personally don't find CERTAIN gun laws to infringe on the rights of people. The biggest issue with owning guns isn't the ownership of small hunting firearms and pistols but rather the ability for most of the general public to access assault rifles. Taking away guns in general would clearly be an infringement on our rights and in a way so would background checks, but what really needs to be done is a ban of assault rifles and that would not infringe on any amendment rights. As a country we can't account for the illegal sale of weapons and certain psychological problems in people that lead them to act in ways that kill children, but what we can do is keep automatic weapons off the streets. There literally is no argument against keeping ak-47s and guns of the sort off the street, and there can only be benefits from a law that prohibits them. It not only would be in completely adherence to the social contract but would also make society a little safer. The constitution grants the right to "bear arms" but in no way is it just or necessary to "protect" yourself with machine guns, especially when people have used them to kill innocent children by the masses.
DeleteGuns are a special type of weapon never seen before in history. The user of this weapon, for the first time in 1358 in the Red Turban Revolution, had instant power. Anyone with a gun has instant power. People have, and always will, doubt the 2nd amendment. The founders of our country knew, under a mix of Enlightenment period philosophies, that in order for America to protect itself from the evils of the world (British), citizens had to be armed. Philosophies aside, the 2nd amendment was a strategic move to protect America and its citizens. In the 2nd World War, Emperor Hirohito of Japan admitted that the only reason that the Japanese didn’t dare invade California, Oregon and Washington was due not to our military powers, but due to “The Armed Citizen.” Hirohito knew it would be impossible to invade America because at that time most Americans were armed. The key to our security is having citizens be well armed. We must protect ourselves from those that try to inflict harm on us. Our enemies, being armed, would love to see America limit citizen’s weapons. Those in government positions with totalitarian ambitions would love to be able to control citizens.
DeleteIt baffles me that people only view guns in immediate terms, and by immediate terms I mean the harm it can do to people and the threat it poses. Sure, it is a valid concern, and if you argue for gun restriction you have a valid point. If guns were, say, banned, what would be the best case scenario? No more violence? Doubt it. People will use knifes and criminals will still have access to weapons. Sure, it’s possible that violence will decrease, but what’s the worst case scenario? If the Armed Citizen is gone from America, will another Hirohito like leader attempt to invade America? Citizens will no longer have instant power to protect themselves. Please do not neglect the fact that having Armed Citizens is essential to the survival of our nation from enemies. The social contract will be obsolete if citizens do not have power. The power will be in the hands of the government instead of the people. If guns are banned, there’s no turning back.
I feel that the original "right to bear arms" clause is no longer entirely relevant. The original idea behind that aspect of the framers ideology didn't have to do with one person defending him/herself from another. That individual protection is the role of the government, under the social contract. No one person has the right to harm another; self-defense is an exception that can't truly be planned for under the law, as it should never be necessary under correct application of the law.
DeleteThe framers established the “right to keep and bear arms” as a protection against the government. In the eventuality of Locke’s necessary rebellion, the people need to defend themselves. Guns were illegal for the peasantry in most pre-enlightenment states because they represented the power to overthrow a monarch. But honestly, in this day and age, guns are a bit useless. The power you would need to completely overthrow a modern corrupt government is measured in warheads, nor bullets. And we’re not talking about “the right to bear nuclear missiles.” That would be insane.
I think MLK proved that we can rebel peacefully and still get results –modern rebellion is occupy wall street and wikileaks, not pitchforks and not guns.
I agree with Mike, Rachel, and Drew. I believe that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and in some cases, a necessity. The ability to protect oneself, i believe, is vital in society. In many areas of our country, immediate response for protection is not always available. As we all know, kids are often left alone at their house. In areas where police are not able to immediately able to arrive, or in situations where they are not able to contact police, sometimes being able to protect them self is only possible through the use of guns. Stopping home invasions, rape, or other heinous crimes is sometimes best achieved through the use of firearms. Moreover, the social contract believes in giving up rights to the government in exchange for order. If the government is not able to supply this order, then the people should not have to give up their rights. Until the government is able to supply this definite order and safety, I believe that people should be allowed to own firearms as they can be vital to the outcomes of certain dangerous situations.
DeleteThe debate on gun control ultimately causes a divide between the people defending the right to bare arms, and those pursuing the safety of the nation. The gun restrictions aren’t banning the use of all guns, but rather high-powered assault weapons. This causes me to question why any ordinary person would even have the need for one of these weapons. It is ridiculous for any household to contain a weapon of a military grade, when sheer protection can be found through an ordinary gun. The gun laws also require a stricter process to obtain a gun license, which is a good idea. I understand that people want the protection of a gun in their household, but legal guns obtained through a license can be just as effective. More regulations would decrease the likelihood of dangerous and spontaneous actions that have been so common in the past few years. People would be forced to think before they act, which ultimately protects the American public.
DeleteI agree with Drew that stricter gun control laws are necessary for our nations safety. The Social Contracts purpose is to protect the people, in this case through stricter gun control laws, which would take away ones right to bear arms. Through stricter gun control laws and background checks, the number of guns owned by citizens would decrease, this would then increase public safety. In addition to stricter gun control laws and background checks, i believe that the government should require extensive mental health screenings, because i believe that this would decrease the amount of public mass shootings. As Drew stated previously, there have been many mass shootings over the past few years, throwing our nation into periods of grief. Just this week there have been two college shootings. Two college shootings in one week is shocking, and i believe that stricter gun control laws, background checks, and mental health screenings could have potentially kept those guns out of the hands of the shooters. Giving up ones freedom to bear arms for the betterment of society is crucial for our nations wellbeing.
DeleteGun Regulation is a controversial issue for which I do not see any clear solutions. While I agree that current gun laws require amendments, I do not believe that very strict gun regulations, which may infringe upon second amendment rights, are necessarily the solution. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that drastically reducing the number of guns in our nation will cause less damage, destruction, and murder. If someone took away your pencil, you could simply continue writing using a pen. People will always find ways to carry out their nefarious agendas. Thus, the issue is not with the number of guns, but with the individuals who are in possession of these devices. The problem is that even with harsher background checks, there will still be copious numbers of guns available, and guns do not have to be registered to you in order for you to use them. Take Adam Lanza for example: he was simply able to use his mother's lethal arsenal to commit his heinous crime.
DeleteIt is naive to believe that if there are gun control laws, the problems of our nation would be solved. Even if it is made illegal to own a gun, people still will. It's like an illegal drug. Just because it is against the law, doesn't mean people still won't have it. People will still have guns no matter what. This just causes more problems because if people do give up their guns, others will not and there will be much more violence. It is written in our Constitution that we have the right to bear arms. If we go against the Constitution, we will erode our nation. It's very rare that a person will get a gun permit and use it for bad purposes. It's the illegally exchanged guns that are causing problems. It is impossible to get rid of all of those guns because they are not documented and therefore can not be located easily. Like I said before, it is simply naive to believe gun control laws would prevent guns from being used for bad. All it would do is give a disadvantage to the good people trying to protect themselves.
DeleteIt has been stated that the Second Amendment is outdated—I agree, in part. My interpretation of the right to bear arms is a right to protect oneself or to rebel against injustice. This is what Locke means when he says there must be bounds to governmental power and that rebellions are necessary for the good of mankind. I find the argument that the right to bear arms means that people have the right to access and purchase weaponry is not as relevant as some people believe it to be.
DeleteAlso, Imposing stricter gun laws does not impede the social contract; Locke’s version of the social contract clearly states that Laws ought to be designed for no other end but the good of the people. If gun laws were not for the good of the people, then the representatives elected by the people would not allow these laws to be passed. No governing body would bother considering or passing laws that are not productive, as proposed by Athul and others. In Japan, which has very strict laws, only 11 people were killed with guns in 2008, compared with 12,000 deaths by firearms that year in the United States. In Australia, the government reacted to a 1996 shooting by creating laws to ban assault weapons and shotguns, and the number of firearm homicides dropped 59% from 1996 to 2006. These regulations have worked in other countries, why not ours?
DeleteDirected at Austin’s argument against my previous post:
DeleteFirst, the data you provided is likely legitimate, but the conclusion you draw from the evidence is not. That there were 50 mass shootings perpetrated using legal weapons does not result in the conclusion that all weapons should be banned. Are you proposing that banning weapons would have stopped these 50 cases? Taking such a stance factors out the determinants of murder to which I suggested in my previous post. Regarding this, I would like to present another statistic: a different study from economists Moorhouse and Warner concluded that when one “control[s] for basic social factors, the data show that gun laws have no significant effect on access to firearms” and that “differing rates of access to handguns had no significant effect on violent acts.” Thus, the determinant of violence is not the availability of guns. Violence is instead a result of the various factors that I have previously mentioned. Therefore, the argument that reducing the availability of weapons is erroneous. Secondly, regardless of the fallacy of the “less guns = less violence” argument, the data you have provided only takes into account mass public shootings and ignores the prevalence of smaller-scale shootings that may have been perpetrated using weapons that were gained through illegal means. In regards to massive public shootings, let me clarify something that I presented earlier: concealed carry laws were the only public policies effective in reducing the amount of people killed in a multiple victim public shooting because the laws either deter criminals from ever initiating an attack, or they allow citizens to stop the attack before the police are able to do so. Thus pursuing gun control policies would actually work against the prevention of mass public shootings. Also, in a survey of prisoners, researchers found that large percentages of prisoners said that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontational crimes and that the prisoners most frightened about confronting an armed victim were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms. Therefore, the prevalence of guns is actually effective at deterring criminals from committing violent crimes. Lastly, your final piece of evidence is used to draw a conclusion based in faulty causation. The reality that a decrease in gun violence occurred after the guns were destroyed does not indicate that the destruction of these guns was the sole factor that caused the drop in violence. Countries that pursue such extreme policies often take other factors into account because they are committed to preventing such violence as the massacre to which you mentioned. I have no doubt that the government also pursued other programs outside the destruction of the guns. I do not mean to propose that the destruction of guns did not contribute to the drop; however, I doubt it was the only contributing factor.
I still hold my stance that guns should be allowed. Drew made excellent points which made me think that the taking away of guns would not mean people wouldn't have guns and access to guns all together. People would always have access, but if guns were taken away, their access would be much more unsafe and illegal...leading to more crime. When things are illegal it commonly makes people want to rebel an break the law. If gun laws were enforced, it would anger many people and give them a reason to rebel.
DeleteNo matter what taking away guns would impose on our rights while mass shootings and destruction would still occur no matter the case.
Like Mike touched on, I think that the banning guns could go either way in both increasing or decreasing crime. However, the facts seem to support that when guns are banned, crime increases. Manslaughter in the U.S. has remained fairly constant in the past 50 years and showed no change in relation to when gun control laws were placed. However, in Washington D.C. specifically, the murder rates went up when the handgun ban became effective, and lowered when the handgun ban shut down. The gun control law in 1997 also caused a jump in homicides. http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.png
I believe that Jenn Paloni has explained this issue perfectly. Locke's explanation of the Social Contract always comes back to the the good of the people. Allowing people to very easily purchase dangerous weapons does not uphold Locke's opinion of what the social contract should entail. I am not going to go against the Bill of Rights, because, whether we like it or not, our country was founded on these principles and the repeal of any of these rights will most likely never happen. Therefore, the 2nd amendment must be considered valid by all citizens. However, I believe the government should have the right to place restrictions on purchasing and owning guns. If anyone can make a valid case to explain why any American citizen needs to own a semi-automatic weapon then please share, but I cannot create a situation in which a weapon of this magnitude would be considered appropriate. The only place for these type of weapons is the armed forces. In society, guns like this only serve to perpetuate unneeded violence as we have seen in the recent school shootings. If people want to own a single small pistol for self defense or a single rifle for hunting the, although with reluctance, I understand. But owning machine guns and other semi-automatic weapons is simply foolish and can not possibly lead to any productive end. I believe the government has a responsibility to notice the current trend and modify the 2nd amendment for the betterment of the American people. Without such a change, Locke's view of the Social Contract will never be truly fulfilled.
DeleteAlso, Nick I agree with your explanation of how far we can take this argument on gun laws. Restricting all guns IS unconstitutional and not within the reasonable scope of reform in gun policy. Howver, as Nick explained, the problem is the possession of large assault weapons that have no place in society. There is a way to effectively keep such weapons out of the hands of people that have not been trained to use them in a way that benefits Americans citizens. This, I believe, is the first step in reforming gun policy that has proven to be ineffective in the past few years.
DeleteI believe that there is always going to controversy about this topic. Both sides have a great amount statistics given by both Drew and Jenn that prove each solution helped the society that it was enforced in. However, we need to come up with a plan that would help our society in the United States. Like Nick said, taking the more powerful weaponry off the market would be the best option for our society and is a step forward in creating a solution. However, some people feel safer knowing that they would be able to defend themselves with a gun in times of trouble. A big key in this argument is about each individual feeling safe in society. It is personal preference and cannot be controlled by any laws. If people do not feel safe, people tend to take matters into their own hands and solve the problem by reinforcing their safety, which could include buying a gun. But, others feel safer knowing that their neighbors do not own any guns. This is where the individualism of people watching out for their own safety becomes a problem. The Social Contract tries to help and protect the people; however, some people do not want to give up their rights to bear arms and some see it as a danger and risk to own guns. If people were to buy guns, I believe that in depth background checks are needed. But, does the background checks infringe on people’s rights? I am not sure, but to ensure the safety of people (I guess similar to the use of the NSA) the government must make a decision on what makes society a safer place to live.
DeleteMy issue with gun control is the creation of an illegal market. Although there have been a numerous amount of tragedies in the past two years or so due to the easy accessibility of guns, I still do not believe in gun control. I feel like these people who are capable of doing such evil things could easily find a way to access guns illegally. Atleast right now, we are able to keep track of guns.If they were to have a major ban, an illegal market would rise. Then, tracking of guns would be impossible. We would have no idea what guns were in circulation or who possessed them or where they got them from. Atleast now we can do all that. Tragedies happen, and we must do our best to prevent them. But banning guns won't prevent them. there are plenty of other weapons that can be used or created.
DeleteI completely agree with Brian's argument that gun control will do close to nothing to prevent criminals from getting weapons. I think imposing strict gun laws would not only do nothing to prevent criminals, but these laws would only affect the responsible owner who will not be a threat. I believe that the only way to really prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands is to look at the source where the guns are made. Instead of restricting the amount of people that can own guns, I believe that if the government is somehow able to regulate the manufacturing of the guns deemed to be the most dangerous then there will be less of those guns on the market. I know there are flaws in this system because it doesn't prevent criminals from acquiring guns that were already made, but I think it is the only shot at reducing the number of guns over time. The only other concern that I have with this system of regulating manufacturers is that guns will then be imported from other countries in order for criminals to attain them, which will probably lead to strict searches on imports.
DeleteI agree with Brian. If there were more restrictions on guns then people would just find more illegal ways to obtain them. It is safer for the government to track the guns sold and have records of those who own them. If they were banned then the government would have no way of knowing who was illegally purchasing them. Stricter rules would only make more criminals. People who just want a gun for their own safety would have to get one illegally, making them a criminal even though their motives were purely to use it for self-defense. In a perfect world, I think no one should be able to just have a gun but in the world we live in people will go to great lengths to get what they want. Therefore, since people will find a way to own guns no matter what, the government should allow it so they can continue to regulate it.
DeleteI feel like most people who voice their opinion really don’t have an opinion. A regular person most likely wouldn’t like stricter gun laws or the complete ban of firearms because it takes away a choice from them. They don’t particularly care about gun laws, they just like knowing they have a choice in the situation. I agree with Jenn and Nick Wu that stricter gun laws that don’t infringe on our rights do not inhibit the Social Contract. Locke said that laws should be created for the good of the people. As Nick Wu pointed out, guns should be harder to obtain with stricter laws, not banned completely. If it’s for the good of the people, then gun laws should be stricter. People typically are quick to generalize that guns are bad when they hear about shootings in movie theaters, schools, malls, ect. But they tend to forget that the gun itself didn’t do anything. It’s the people who use the gun that cause the damage.
DeleteHowever, I also acknowledge the fact that the right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights. Like how laws limit the power of the individual, the Bill of Rights limits the power of the government. I think that Enlightenment ideas should apply to everyone. If Voltaire likes freedom of speech and people want pure freedom of speech, they must permit everyone else to have freedom of speech as well. I don’t think it’d be right to say that pure freedoms are acceptable. People already recklessly post images, status, videos, and other stuff on the internet. I don’t see a way one organization can regulate the entire thing, but that’s why individual websites have terms and conditions of agreements – so they can monitor their own sites/web pages. I don’t think that some people should be limited to freedom of speech because many people would claim that it’s “unfair”. And I understand that perspective. It’s not fair for the government to pick and chose who to limit and who can do as he/she wishes. Hate groups voice their opinion (granted that the opinions are typically very extreme) but is it fair for everyone else to voice their opinion as well? Would the best solution be to limit everyone if the population wants a group to be limited?
Though I don’t personally understand why someone would want to own a gun, something that was invented for the sole purpose of ending another living creature’s life, I don’t believe that taking away someone’s right to bear arms will solve all violence. As already commented by many people before me, making something illegal will not end its practice. Just because the government makes it illegal to own guns does not mean that people will cease to own or try to obtain guns. However, I do believe that if the government is going to protect its people, as it is obligated to do in the social contract, there should be strict laws on gun ownership. It is necessary for people to give up their right to buy and own a gun however they please in order to create stability in the community that they live in. By creating strict gun control laws that require registration of all guns and the prohibition of the sale of semi-automatic weapons to the general public, the government will be protecting its people from unnecessary violence. Though compliance with these laws will mean that the public has to give up some of its rights regarding guns, there will be more stability in the absence of unrestrained and unchecked gun violence.
DeleteI agree completely with Brian. The problem isn't legal gun control, which the current regulations are fine, it is the illegal market. People are forgetting that a lot of public shootings are with illegally bought or stolen guns, and there is no way to prevent people from doing that. I think current background checks are actually sufficient, and as hard as it would be, I think that the government should stop taking the easy way out and focusing on legal gun sales and target the illegal gun market. The illegal gun market is growing throughout the years, especially with stricter regulations being imposed. Because of it's size, I understand that it would be a tough thing to target, but I think that legal gun sales are not the problem. Also, people have to right to own guns, society makes it less simple than it needs to be. Although many people don't see any reason to own a gun, it's not really a good enough reason for the government to ban gun sales. The government should follow the Social Contract philosophy and provide protection by allowing people to own guns, while enforcing it's current regulations.
DeleteI have to agree with what Brian was saying before. It's a sad truth, but people with bad intentions will find a way to do bad things. Although I do think that precautionary screenings such as background checks for red flags such as criminal records or mental health issues can prevent some of these bad people from getting a hold of guns so easily, guns will always be available to a person by illegal means. Similar to many arguments supporting the legalization of marijuana, keeping guns available to the public will allow for better government regulation and also decrease the illegal market that would inevitably replace the hole that would be gun sale bans. It is better to have less illegal gun trafficking, which will lead to more powerful criminals, than to try to prevent guns from being sold, which is a futile pursuit in its own.
DeleteI agree with Mitch and Brian, I believe that no matter how hard the government tries to eradicate guns from the American public, they will fail. I do believe that strict gun laws should be put in place. Laws that prohibit individuals with criminal records (involving serious crimes), or sociopathic tendencies, for example, should not be allowed to possess a firearm. The operator of the gun should also be forced to take a mandatory gun safety class. I do believe that firearms should be legal in this country, so long as the operator of said firearm is competent and trained to be safe with their weapon.
DeleteMy true opinion in regards to gun rights is that the general public shouldn’t have access to them at all, because they do way more bad than they could ever do good and if no one has access to guns, while some will find a way to get them illegally, then there will be far fewer crimes using them and accidents caused by them and there will be almost no need to have a gun for self-defense issues. While many would say this is breaking the social contract, I’d argue that the social contract can change over time and the Second Amendment was written at a time when things were very different.
DeleteThat being said I understand that this could never truly happen, so in the case that the general public has access to guns, I think that everyone should be allowed to have them and they should be allowed to carry them on their person, because if criminals are going to have widely open access to guns, innocent citizens should be able to protect themselves at all times. I don’t like this option because I’m aware that there will be many more deaths with these loose laws, but it’s my general view that everyone should be able to defend themselves against what they’re up against. However, even in this scenario I think there should still be restrictions on what types of guns people can access. I don’t see why the general public would need machine guns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons, and guns with high capacity magazines for self-defense, so they should only be available to military and police.
I agree with everyone saying that there should be stricter gun laws. I agree with Matt J that guns should be legal, there should just be more limitations on purchasing them. Making it harder to gain access to guns or not allowing certain types of guns to be purchased does not infringe on a persons rights whatsoever. The government would not be taking away the right to have guns. These laws would just be making it safer for people to own guns. The only people that would be denied acess to guns would be people who could put other Americans in danger by owning a gun. This goes along with the social contract and the idea that certain rights sometimes need to be denied in order to benefit the rest of the society. I think that the main thing that needs to be changed about guns in this country is the type of guns that can be purchased. If you look back at many of the recent, devestating shootings that have happened in this country, many of them involved serious weapons such as semi-automatic guns.There is no reason that the average person needs weapons that can cause that much destruction in so little time. People should be allowed to purchase guns because I don't believe that taking away guns will take away crime or murders, but I do believe that laws involving guns need to be stricter.
DeleteAustin I have similar views with you about gun laws. There is no need for citizens to legally own guns, when the police, (the people whom have dedicated their lives to protecting us), have them. Why should my life be endangered because certain, possibly, unstable, people are allowed to own and handle a gun. Most stories that can be heard over the news involve a shooting of some sort, or at least a person who was carrying a gun. So, what would be the harm in banning them? I know that I would personally feel safer without gun sale legalized in the United States. Even though the banning of guns would infringe upon certain unalienable rights, so would the fact that I can be shot by a person with a gun, when I do not/can not own one myself. My rights are abolished when a person can technically harm me whenever they want. As Grant said, anyone with a gun has instant power. I think the real debate here is what infringement can result with the fewest problems.
DeleteI agree with Austine and Julia that guns for public is completely unnecessary. Of course there are people who use guns for their hobbies. However, there are many alternatives to those activities, and hobbies are not essential for living. Also, regarding background checks, yes, criminal record and record of past violence are important, but what's more important is the intention of one buying the gun. Someone's thoughts and motivation for certain action can never be surely and clearly known by others. Therefore background checks are mostly ineffective. Another thing is that simply making gun possession illegal will decrease the public interest in purchasing guns, and considering that many gun crimes are impulsive, having no guns could prevent much of the impulse shootings. Knowing the negative consequences and little to no positive effects guns bring, guns should be banned from the public.
DeleteI am not for the strict gun laws and background checks that many people want to enact. Gun laws aren’t going to fix crazy people. If somebody has the desire to inflict damage to another person with a gun they are going to find a way to do it. I do not like the idea of background checks because although it may stop some people from using guns the wrong way, it will not stop them all. A completely sane person could wake up the next day and say he wants to kill someone. He would have passed that background check a day ago which is way I feel that they will not be affective. While I am for allowing people to have guns I do not believe it is necessary for people to have assault rifles and high caliber guns. A normal citizen simply doesn’t need a machine gun. I feel that people have the right to protect themselves, therefore they may have guns such as pistols and rifles.
DeleteRegarding the issue of whether or not to restrict the freedom of speech for certain groups, I believe that freedom of speech should have no restrictions regardless of the group or person. Although most hate groups will be the small minority of the population, this should not restrict them from allowing their voices to be heard. It is true that a lot of these small groups will have so called “radical” beliefs compared to the beliefs of the majority, but there are several times in history where once “radical” ideas are now the popular beliefs. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft was one of the first people to write about women being more than just property and that they deserve equal rights. Clearly her ideas where not supported by the patriarchal society that she lived in, but one of the reasons that women have rights today was because she had the freedom of speech to express her views on women’s rights.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely true that freedom of speech is important to usher in new ideas, but when it comes to groups like KKK or NAMBLA, they kinda exist for themselves, and it's safe to say America won't become white supremacist in 100 years. There are certain times when freedom of speech is limited in order to protect people like slander and hate speech (especially in environments like school or workplace). I personally wouldn't mind if this kind of stuff was forbidden because I doubt it's in our future, but I know others need to express their own opinions as well. To me, freedom of speech is important to speak out against government actions if they don't seem favorable. That's how the freedoms truly protect the people because it allows them to have a government that is working to their benefit. The right to speak out against a race, for example, is pretty much useless because that race isn't going anywhere.
DeleteI agree with Jared. The government does not have the right to restrict anyone’s freedom of speech. This pertains to the average citizen and to hate groups. Freedom of speech allows people in a society to have their own opinion. If the government restricted this right, people would be fearful of sharing their opinions; therefore, reforms would not occur because everyone would have to accept the opinion that the government gave them. For example, if the government had restricted people’s opinions about the Civil Rights Movement, we might still be living in a society that discriminates African Americans. While there is still some discrimination, Americans were able to come to their own opinions of the Civil Rights Movement overtime because a person like Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to speak freely. Another reason for why the government should not restrict freedom of speech is because it impacts many others rights. In a society, where there is no freedom of speech people’s right to vote would go away because they would be afraid to voice their opinion. Therefore, freedom of speech is a right that the government should not take away for any group in society.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree: certain groups’ free speech should not be limited or taken away. Although groups such as the NAMBLA and Westboro Baptist Church might say things that are contrary to the rest of society’s fundamental values, this does not mean that their Constitutional rights should be revoked. Our society is originally based around the Constitution, so making certain people renounce it is ridiculous. Free speech and debate drive today’s society; and although, yes, most of our society probably disagrees with these groups’ statements and philosophies, these differences in opinion give us no right to confiscate their free speech.
DeleteI agree with Jackie in that the government should not be allowed to limit anyone’s freedom of speech. Although it would be nice to restrict certain hate groups from expressing cruel opinions, taking away freedom of speech for everyone could lead to more problems. As far as the effect that this has on our modern society with the Internet, just because people may make negative comments doesn’t mean that they aren’t entitled to their own opinion. Online, freedom of speech has allowed people to debate important issues and express themselves without having to do so face to face. Hate groups have little impact on society compared to the loss of individual rights that people would experience if the government restricted freedom of speech.
DeleteI disagree with Jackie and Kayce because I think that the freedom of speech should be restricted for hate groups. As part of the social contract concept, it is sometimes necessary to give up certain rights for reasons of protection. If hate groups are speaking out and discriminating and criticizing certain groups of people then our government should limit their freedom of speech to protect those who they are discriminating against. Governments should not be able to limit the freedom of speech of human rights groups but rather that of those groups who pose a threat to others' safety and security.
DeleteBut Emma, by allowing the government to censor certain groups, it creates a really uncertain precedent that has lots of room to be taken too far. If the government has the ability to censor groups whose ideas they don't agree with, then what dictates what the government thinks is dangerous or harmful? I'm more fearful that the government would abuse their power (and therefore our social contract) than that racist inbred hicks or disgusting child creepers would actually pose a further threat than just hurting people's feelings with their words. Please don get it misconstrued, I in no way agree with the thoughts, words, or actions of the kkk or NAMBLA, and I hope that if they ever did take action, the police would jail and hurt them, but censoring them is just a blatant violation of rights and a scary power to give to the government in a time where the government has already out stepped it's boundaries on things like privacy and confidentiality.
DeleteEmma and Nick, I am sorry Emma, but I mostly side with Nick here. Having the government limit groups freedom of speech could potentially lead to everyone being blinded by the governments point of view and ignorant to other opinions that may be in the best interest of the nation. Emma you said that the government should stop groups who are "discriminating against" others, but later state that they should only stop those "who pose a threat to others' safety and security." I believe those two statements contradict each other and I only agree with you on the later. How is a group discriminating against another group pose a threat to there safety? Sure feeling might be hurt, but unless there discriminating with physical action and threatening health (which is out of the topic of free speech) then they are not harming anyone's safety. I do believe that if a group is ACTUALLY threatening safety and security with their speech they should be legally stopped. It's the same idea as someone yelling "fire" in a crowded building when no one is in danger of a fire. If a group is falsely worrying people and causing a dangerous panic or anything else that threatens safety, they should be controlled.
DeleteYeah, being concerned that a hate group may promote violence is a genuine concern, but there are already laws in place to reprimand those who threaten and those who do commit violent actions. In fact, I'd say it would be better to allow hate groups to organize and blow off steam than it would be to force them to bottle up angst because they don't have their freedom of speech and end up doing something worse than just saying things. Even though it kinda is justified to not allow them to say that kinda stuff, the fact of the matter is making it illegal won't change anything. Force doesn't solve problems and certainly doesn't get people to think differently. If our main issue is that we think certain groups are relaying bad messages, then we should strive to educate them and especially the generations that follow them to keep them from continuing.
DeleteSorry Austin, I disagree with your logic. I firmly believe that discrimination will have more implications than people having "feelings hurt." There are multiple psychological studies that prove the negative impacts of discrimination, an important impact being bullying.
DeleteIn addition, I partly disagree with Nick's response to Emma. Although there is a possibility that the government will abuse its new found power, i believe it has the potential to be different from its infringements on its power with privacy and confidentiality. As seen in our media today, minuscule to large scale scandals are easily projected towards the public, and like the breaches with the NSA, people will know and take action, in accordance to the social contract. However, I believe the benefit of protecting the various groups from hate crimes outweighs the potential for the government to abuse its power. The harsh words and actions are major issues in our society. When a loved one's funeral is boycotted and picketed, or children are constantly being driven to self-harm, depression, and suicide, it is necessary that the people give up the right of freedom of speech (which they have been misusing) in exchange for a safe environment for the victims of society.
I think that discrimination is pretty threatening so I wouldn't say the two statements are "contradictory."
DeleteEmma and Matt, discrimination certainly is threatening when physical actions are being taken. Like Dan said there are already laws to punish and prevent violent discrimination though. "Feelings hurt" may have been a slight understatement, but it still has no effect on anyone's safety. As you said Matt it is just psychological damage that is being done. I'm not saying that affecting people's psyche is not a big deal, but my argument is that the line of freedom of speech should be drawn after physical safety is threatened though speech.
DeleteEmma and Matt, I agree with your points but I don't think it's logical to censor certain groups because it is more complicated than saying who is a hate group and who is not. I agree with Nick because obviously groups like the KKK and NAMBLA should be quelled for physically threatening the safety of others but their speech should not be compromised. The freedom is speech is probably one of the biggest factors of individualism. Just because someone has a different opinion, even if it is hateful and highly opposed, he or she is still entitled to an opinion. And someone who objects their opinions is not in the right to choose who or what is a hateful group or not. It starts to violate The Social Contract and relationships with the government are intensified because freedom of speech is endangered. That is also based on personal preference. I am in no way sticking up for these hate groups. It is a terrible thing but what if someone tried to tell you that you couldn't share your opinion? It is when these hateful opinions are taken to the next level that the government should take legal action. Also, discrimination doesn't necessarily imply that it is a threat. Discrimination could simply be someone's own negative interpretation or understanding of another party or group.
DeleteAs horrible as hate groups comments and signs may be, the government should not have the ability to limit their freedom of speech simply because it is a hate group. It is unfair to allow any individual to have freedom of speech, but the minute a hate sign is put up, regard it as illegal and force them to take it down. As cruel as these signs may be, the government should not have the power to ban their freedom of speech, yet allow others that they agree with to express their opinions. Whether or not somebody's opinion in society is considered a morally good opinion should not decide if they are allowed to state it or not.
DeleteI’m going to have to agree with Emma on this one. I do think freedom of speech should be restricted for hate groups. Our government should be protecting the people who these groups are speaking out against. As for what Kayce said, that these groups have little impact on society, I disagree. I think hate groups, such as the KKK and NAMBLA have a large negative impact on society. All NAMBLA does is try to repeal laws keeping kids safe from pedophiles - to me that is very negative and doesn’t deserve to be said.
DeleteI agree with all the proponents of free speech including Kate and Emma. I know this might seem to contradict the point I made on Eric's post, but there is a fundamental difference. I actually agree with Kayce that, in today's progressive society, hate groups really have little power over much larger, more liberally progressive group. I do not know about all of you, but I have not seen a news story about significant hate group activity in quite a while. The days of racial prejudice, KKK America are long gone and it has become increasingly obvious that hate groups are fading and fading rapidly. New generations are bringing new progressive ideas that undermine the ideas of radical hate groups. However, this is not the reason that hate groups should not be entitled to free speech. This country was established on firm foundations of free speech and the unrestricted creation of new ideas and philosophies. Through this method, America has made great improvements in nearly every aspect of life, including politics, philosophy, and technology. Just because people do not like the radical thoughts of hate groups does not make those thought invalid. Although they are typically malicious, these beliefs need to be considered in order to maintain the spirit of American progressiveness. In other words, if the radical ideas of hate groups did not exist, neither would the realization of effective, benevolent social philosophies.
Deletei completely agree with Adam here that these hate groups have very little significance on the general population. They are called "hate groups" because they hate what is socially acceptable. If racism and discrimination was still strongly present today, then would the KKK really be considered a hater group that need to be monitored or just a group that is in favor of what is right? The majority of the population has already made up their minds against the hate group and that's why they want to limit their freedom of speech. I think that letting these groups speak out there extreme opinions actually fuels peoples hates toward the hate groups and is more effective then taking away their freedom of speech.
DeleteI have to side with nick about the danger of allowing the government to censor the right to freedom of speech due to their newfound ability to control what is heard publically. The whole of point of the freedom of speech is allowing a variety of different opinions to be expressed, allowing the individual to form their own thoughts. This also raises the issue on how to regulate these censors under predetermined rules, when each hate group or outspoken individual is so different. If the government gained the right to censor public speech, it would cause greater controversy through these groups accusing the government of disagreeing with their ideas specifically. Also, by threatening a natural right through government involvement, doesn’t this raise questions about our other individual rights? However, having said this, I also agree with Adam and Kayce on the insignificance of this issue. With the turnover of generations, ideas are changing so quickly that people tend not to focus on one overwhelming hate group, but rather only the ones that contradict their ideas. Austin also has a point about hate groups bringing more negativity on themselves by being in the spotlight.
DeleteAustin, I would not say that hate groups "hate was is socially acceptable". In the case of the KKK it grew to be popular in a time African Americans were mostly impoverished and still thinking of them as less was still relatively the norm (well, the original reconstruction-era KKK was). So its not that they were going against society's views, but were they not still considered a hate group? Adding to that I agree that there should be freedom of speech, but it should be restricted in some way. People give up their rights to the government to be given protection by it, and if the government is not protecting them from hate groups or creeps like NAMBLA, then it is not fulfilling its role in the social contract.
DeleteAs I agree with Emma and Matt that our freedom of speech should be somewhat censored, I think Corinne’s point on the impossibility of defining what should be censored will keep the government from censoring speech. Even if hate groups are not directly threatening an individual or a group, they still encourage violent behavior and acts towards their targets. Regardless whether or not hate groups are a minority of the population, they still are violating others’ freedom of feeling safe. Therefore, the government should have the right to step in and censor discriminatory and hateful comments.
DeleteAs much as I hate to say this, the government has to protect hate groups too. Just because the majority of people may disagree with certain horrible groups, they still have the right to say whatever they want, just like everyone else. The government can't act solely on words because everyone must have equal protection under the law. If any of these group begin to act upon their words, that is where the government should step in. Remember that bullying is a form of harassment, which is illegal. And harassment can be anything that makes someone else feel unsafe, which is a really broad concept. But having the freedom to voice an opinion shouldn't be regulated by the government, because it's an opinion and opinions don't matter until someone acts upon it. So, the government really is fulfilling their role in the Social Contract because since it can't protect people from simply words, which is kind of a ridiculous thing to advocate, it protects people from harmful things such as violence and harassment.
DeleteI think that we shouldn’t impose upon people’s freedom of speech in most cases. However, there have already been examples of cases where freedom of speech doesn’t apply put into the justice system, like how someone can’t shout fire in a crowded movie theater if there isn’t a fire. I think this very well could apply to people promoting crimes to large groups of people with the mental capability of performing those crimes, like the KKK encouraging hate crimes and NAMBLA encouraging pedophilia and child molestation.
DeleteI agree with everyone saying that hate groups should be protected under the first amendment. While the statements of these groups are obviously controversial, they need to be allowed. If the KKK is not allowed to protest racial equality, for example, this creates a very slippery slope in which any protest deemed controversial can be outlawed. This may potentially include protests against the government itself when it violates our rights, which clearly violates the Social Contract. One thing that can be changed, however, is the listing of certain hate groups as religions. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church (AKA the "God Hates F**S" church) receives tax exemptions. While their hateful speech should not be outlawed, their tax exemptions should.
DeleteI agree with you David in that we cannot ban groups from protesting what they believe. Although their words can be very offensive, they won't necessarily hurt a person physically. There is no need to limit people's freedom of speech; no one has the right to do that, no matter how morally wrong some of the comments can be. Eventually, if the world stops paying attention to these groups, they will quiet down. Everyone has different views and is allowed to feel the way they feel. This raises the concern on how the government would even be able to censor the hate groups comments...what would be considered too far or what would be considered acceptable? No one wants to have to decide that. It is better that the government be aware of what rises from these hate groups, but does not infringe upon their unalienable rights as citizens of America.
DeleteMy initial opinion on this was that freedom of speech should be taken away from certain hate groups and people that would be speaking out against innocent Americans. However, once I read through some more of the comments, I started to agree with everyone saying that this could be a risky decision. I definitly agree with Nick and everyone who said that giving the government the power to take away freedom of speech from certain groups of people creates a problem. There is really no way for the government to draw an exact line between who should have freedom of speech and who shouldn't . This can cause a lot of controversy. Even though I do not at all agree with the practices of hate groups, I feel that there is not a way to limit their freedom of speech without causing greater problems in the future. I know that words can hurt but technically these people are entittled to their own opinion.There are laws against harassment or violent acts so if these groups harass or threaten people, then they will be in trouble. But the government really can't have control over how these people want to talk or feel no matter how horrible it i
DeleteAccording to Locke if The Social Contract begins to encroach of our individual rights, there will be a rebellion from the group the contract is supposed to be protecting. Under this belief the concept of The Social Contract has gone too far only if there is a rebellion. Locke and his ideals acted almost as a catalyst in the American Revolutionary War as Britain had overstepped and gone to far with the treatment of the colonists. I think with the knowledge of the social contract that society should should be looked at as one big team. Every person is trying to live their life to be happy and successful, and that can only happen if everyone works together. For example, if society was everyone for themselves then traffic and driving in general would be terrible; people would be cut off and common driving courtesy would not exist. If one person puts himself and his needs above the rest then nothing good can happen for society. Therefor teamwork is a logical option. Everybody could aid each other in reaching their goals. Another reason teamwork is the better option is because we truly are a team in society; we need each other and each other’s skills to prosper. Farmers and engineers are very different but one could simply not exist without the other.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be really hard to say that people today are actively looking out for each other and acting as a team in society. I mean it's practically human nature to be selfish and put yourself before everyone else; it's what people do. In your traffic example, some people are nice, but many people do cut others off. The way I see it, the real reason driving works well is because of the laws put in place by society, and the roads built by other citizens, and the network of stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limits. Those are all put in place a government that can organize it. Rousseau said how if everyone functions for their own individual benefit, a general will arises. Most will agree these laws ultimately benefit everyone. The government put them in place according to the general will. Anyone who is familiar with game theory's prisoner's dilemma knows people almost never sacrifice their own wealth to work as a team.
DeleteKrista, I disagree with your argument that the social contract completely protects the rights of individuals while benefiting society as a team. You mention how rebellion should occur when there are restrictions and violations regarding our individual rights. However, I see that these restrictions and a small degree of encroachment are necessary in order to support the general will. In the general will, society acts as a team, and as a result benefits everyone. For example, the speed limit is put in place by the government to create safer driving conditions for everyone, although many individuals may want to speed to get to their destination quicker. There might be one or two people who do not obey these restrictions; yet because the vast majority obeys, society is overall safer.
DeleteI agree with Dan that people are trying to work as a team in society. The problem with Locke's view of the Social Contract is that individual rights that have been taken away are only restored if that society rebels. This leads to subtle encroachment of people's individual rights because unless the government crosses the line and angers enough people their will be no rebellion or massive call for change. When it comes to rights people take what they have for granted and shrug their shoulders if the government tries to take it away. This leaves a few people to actually fight for that particular freedom, and unless the majority of that society is out there calling for change there won't be one. If society could work as a big team instead of individuals almost no one could be taken advantage of like they can be now.
DeleteAlthough Locke said people have the right to rebel if a government becomes tyrannical, I don't think that applies to America at all. We all have the right to vote in better politicians (and thus we have the ability to vote out those who threaten our rights). I think Rousseau's interpretaiton of the social contract is much more relevant. Everyone should be aware of their country's politics, so they can pursue what will be best for themselves, and in doing so the public will put into office the politicians that will benefit them as a whole.
DeleteI agree with Dan that even though the people have the right to rebel doesn’t mean it will benefit society, especially America which already has laws to protect citizen rights. Locke’s view of the social contract was much too extreme. In society today, a huge rebellion is less likely than only a few people stepping out of line. Locke’s view of the social contract does not account for this small percentage of people that actually rebel. I think the traffic example was a perfect demonstration of this. Although a few people may break the rules, most people in society go the speed limit because it benefits everyone. The fact that it is human nature to want more and be selfish, doesn’t mean society can’t benefit as a “team.” Therefore, I agree with Rousseau’s idea that the general will can succeed if every works to benefit themselves in society.
DeleteI understand your comment Dan however, there have been times where other nations have had leaders, who were elected by the people of that nation, that went and declared themselves a dictator and destroyed any possibility of another person being elected. That's why I think Locke's theory of a nation being able to rebel against there government can still apply to America, although it is obviously highly unlucky.
DeleteI have to agree with Dan on this one. Often individuals tend look out for themselves and their own benefit rather than a whole society. Unfortunately, selfishness is a characteristic that everyone has even if one says one does not have it. It is part of human nature and no law can fix that. Laws can only do so much to protect people. Society has to rely on the good of the people to make the right choices that could benefit society, but not everyone buys into that. Thus, people rebel against different laws and do their own thing, which cannot fully be controlled. That is one of the biggest downfalls of society. In order to work as a team, everyone must cooperate; however, this is not always the case in the United States. Therefore, I would not consider our society a team, but more as individuals working for the same goal. The goal in our society today is getting to the top and being the best. There are plenty of greedy people in the world that realize that they can take advantage of other people and create a following that will support them. Matt, that is how those dictators get elected. They say or do something that the community wants and they gain support. Some other countries do not have the same checks and balances that the United States have; therefore, it is easier to have a dictator to rule over society.
DeleteI agree with Dan. I think that almost everything is based off of the individual, with some things regulated by the government, which can be changed by the citizens through voting. Krista said that people can't be happy and successful if they don't work together, but I think it's the exact opposite. People do anything they can to become successful, and it may make others unhappy, but it's really not their problem. If people worked together that means that everything about them has to be equal, which eliminates competition in a capitalist society. I agree with Locke's idea that citizens can rebel against a tyrannical government, but as Dan said it doesn't apply to the United States, because there are a lot of checks and balances in the government.
DeleteI think that the social contract is very important to helping society as a whole, but when used too much can encroach on people’s individualism. People are naturally selfish and driven by self-interest. For things where people’s acts out of self-interest could greatly harm others in the society (like murder, theft, and other crimes), the government should place laws which will steer the general people’s self-interest towards not doing those things, because they’d rather not go to jail. That way the people still get to do what’s in their best interest, but what most choose will also be in the best interest of society as a whole. Less major things that you can’t really prohibit should be left to the people to decide for themselves individually. Most will do what’s best for them and not what’s best for the society, but the government shouldn’t be able to control everything and people should have the right to make their own decisions on things that won’t necessarily destroy society.
DeleteI agree with Krista, who reasoned through Locke’s beliefs, that the social contract only encroaches the rights of individuals if the people under the contract rebel. Locke’s belief that individual rights are only infringed upon if the people rebel, reminds me of the Thomas Jefferson quote “In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns”. I believe that Locke’s belief on the social contract and Thomas Jefferson’s quote come hand in hand, because both imply that a nation is actually run by its people, who can vote and rebel, and not by the government itself. The idea that a nations people hold the true power of nation correlates with the belief that individual rights are encroached only if a rebellion occurs, because if the people are content with the current state of their rights, then a rebellion would not arise. I also agree with Krista that we should look at society as being one team, because if the end goal of society was to reach every need of every individual, society would be driven by greed and personal benefit. Rather than focusing on each individual needs, we must look at what is best for the majority of society and not the individual. A selfless society is greater than a selfish one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see how the social contract, which contuines to be percefclty viable and beneficial in the modern day applies to the recent NSA scandal, I do not believe that the NSA should be able to access our personal communication. The fundamental idea of the social contract is that society gives up rights, privacy among other things in the case of the NSA, and in turn gains security, in the case of the NSA, from terrorists. Personally and what I have observed from others is that Americans have only seen the first part of this deal come to fruition. Our privacy certainly has been comprised and the National Security agency has undoubtedly had back door access to at least some communication but no where has the name of a single terrorist, terrorist plot or terrorist organization that has been foiled by the NSA been widely publicized. If this seemingly one sided and undemocratic program is effective it would be in the best interest of the American people and the Government figures receiving scorn over this program to release hard disputable facts confirming or denying the efficacy of this agency.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a very valid point to point out the questionable success of the NSA spying on citizens. I concur that Americans have not received a perfect return in exchange for the NSA spying on their personal lives. While this is certainly evident, I do believe that the US feels as if they have run out of options when it comes to protection from terrorist attacks. After the attacks of 9/11, the government was essentially issued an ultimatum: crack down on the activity of all people in America, including American citizens, or sit idly and watch as another devastating attack inevitably occurs on US soil. As a US citizen, I personally feel that the government is justified in keeping a close watch on its citizens in order to ensure security. While many people may view this as an infringement of their privacy rights, I do not view it this way. Why would people care if the government was spying on their trivial chatter and text messages with friends and family. For the vast majority of American citizens, this daily things are innocuous, and the government is well aware of that. The government focuses on people that they have reason to believe may be a threat to our country. As a citizen that wants to live in a secure country, I am perfectly content with allowing the government to keep an eye on my insignificant daily conversations in exchange for keeping the country as safe as possible. In some cases, the often stringent boundaries of the Bill of Rights must be transgressed in order to really achieve as close to a utopia as possible.
DeleteAccording to the United Nations, privacy is a basic human right. Sure, many countries are suffering worse spying and censorship than ours, but I would expect America out of all countries to follow this declaration. However, America isn’t, and as Eric said, we are not even getting anything out of this invasion of privacy. They are not, as Adam stated, ensuring security; they could not even stop the Boston Bombings, which a man that another country specifically warned about caused. The NSA certainly did not focus on that man who was believed to be a threat to the country. If we are trading our basic right of privacy for security, I expect true security, and not the incompetence that we are stuck with now.
DeleteI agree with Adam. Although it seems unacceptable for the government to invade "our personal space," in doing so they are keeping us safe. If there is nothing to hide, then why should it be such a big deal for them to look into our files. It is to prevent terrorist activity in the United States and anything that could prevent American lives from being lost is beneficial. What could possibly go wrong with being monitored? We still have our rights. It is not like we are being censored or having any laws that prevent us from doing activities. By the government trying to keep us "safe" the American people feel as though they are being attacked and that is not what is happening. We may feel uncomfortable about having our privacy invaded, but it is for a just reason. To be completely safe, Americans may have to adjust to the NSA, but they are not trying to hurt us. The main purpose is to help us.
DeleteActually, many things can go wrong with being monitored. The fact that a human is the one making the call of whether or not to convict someone is already bringing in the factor of human error. I remember reading a couple months back about a kid who was arrested for saying that he was going to shoot a school of people and proceed to eat their hearts on a video game, following that nasty comment with an "lol" and "jk". Sure, it was stupid of him to say such a thing in the first place, but sending him to jail with a bail of $500,000 is way too much for a statement made on a video game. Now people have to watch what they say on the internet, or risk being misinterpreted and labeled as a terrorist.
DeleteDan, while I understand your argument about people being wrongly labeled as dangerous threats, I still believe that the government should be allowed to loosely monitor its citizens in order to better protect all. That is the definition of Locke's social contract: to give up individual rights in order to better serve the good of the people. In order to best serve the people, I don't mind at all if the government listens or reads anything i say or write because I'm not hiding anything from the government. I understand that this is a minor infringement on individual rights, but if we want a peaceful society, I am okay to give up some of those rights.
DeleteAlso Dan, in response to your story about the boy arrested for making sarcastically violent comments on video games, that incident occurred on June 27, 2013, just two months removed from the Boston Marathon Massacre that had this country on lock down for weeks. I'm not saying that the story shows nothing because I concede that it does show something about the sensitivity of our government, but the government was still at a heightened state of watch from the Boston Marathon shooting and this may have contributed to their swift action on such a matter.
DeleteI am rather split sided on the matter. I agree somewhat with Eric's reasoning but more so with Adam's. While i do feel like the government does not need to be all up in my grill monitoring my every breath and movement I do feel the NSA should have the capability and more less the right to see whats going on. Eric you do make a good point that throughout all this time the NSA has not been affective in stopping major terroristic events from happening. However i do feel that even through the downfalls in the organization, hopefully they are learning from their past mistakes and will soon capitalize on them. I really do believe now criticize me if you want that it would be dangerous if we didn't have an organization like this to monitor and to check in and make sure that everything is running smoothly with our nation. Now do some people in NSA abuse this power to monitor society….sure they do. It's human nature and people are corrupt and there is simply nothing we can do about it. So while i do feel that the NSA does not need to monitor my every footstep, I do feel strongly on the matter that we as a society need an organization to look out for us and prevent us from times of hostility.
DeleteThe NSA should not be allowed to spy on our information. I see that such spying without acknowledgement as a violation of human rights. I often discussed the NSA with my tutor and she brought an interesting perspective. Ever since the increase in global terrorism (9/11, etc.) the NSA and US security as a whole have placed restrictions on many things and resorted to such unknown tactics such as information spying. The government is afraid and thus is continuously violating its social contract by illegally observing our information. Yet again (like the economy) it is a situation where the few are abusing the rights of the many to satisfy their own fear. The people, also afraid, do not directly go against the NSA. However, if they hope to change the current state, the government (along with the people) must let go of their fear and accept that the world is ever-changing and that you can not keep everything the same forever.
ReplyDeleteJustin Pan
Justin, although you make a valid point that the government's spying can be considered a violation of human rights, you must understand they are doing this in order to keep Americans safe. The NSA's monitoring is worth citizens giving up some of their basic privacies because it insures these citizens will live in a safer community. The government is not constantly searching through useless information; the government is interesting in terroristic actions. The NSA and American citizens are a perfect example of the Social Contract. In giving up some of our rights, we are all able to live a better life with peace of mind. There are ways in which the NSA could increase their effectiveness, yet the good outweighs the bad since the government is doing this in order to protect their citizens. Through their spying, terrorists will be caught before they are able to act, saving the lives of our people.
DeleteSarah, I disagree that the NSA should be able to spy, or at least be able to spy the way they currently are. At this point, I feel as if though it is past the point of a balanced social contract between human rights and government control. America was founded on a well balanced social contract and laws like the amendments were put in place to keep that balance. The way the NSA is proceeding with their surveillance now is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. They are UNREASONABLY searching information. National security could be preserved while also respecting our civil rights. The Fourth Amendment does not ban surveillance. It bans surveillance without judicial oversight and clear limits. An order to collect all phone records clearly violates this and other searches they do that are just unnecessary. They should be protecting our country, but with a more direct focus.
DeleteI agree and disagree with you guys in different ways.
DeleteJustin- You see these restrictions due to 9/11 BECAUSE we were attacked by terrorists and we could have potentially prevented the attack if the NSA was listening in on calls during that time. Maybe the NSA will prevent another terrorist attack and thousands of lives lost in the future. I think it's worth the renunciation of some of our privacy rights.
Sarah- I agree with you however Austin did bring up the point that there have been some instances of unreasonably searching information. However the process of the NSA listening in on phone calls is worth the lives that could be saved.
As Americans, we are learning more and more each day about protecting our country. Also as citizens of the United States, we should all be willing to give up some privacy for the benefit of the whole. If you don't have anything to hide then what is the problem? If you do have something to hide form the government then maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place...
I agree with Sarah and Corinne. The government’s spying does invade people’s privacy but it is for the good of the nation because the NSA is trying to stop terrorists’ attacks. I, personally, would rather the government spy and stop an attack then not. Like Sarah said, this is the basic concept of the social contract. We are giving up our right of privacy in order to prevent terrorist attacks and save millions of lives. Also, as Corinne pointed out if you having nothing to hide then you shouldn’t care if the government spies on you. By giving up this freedom we could potentially stop Americans from dying.
DeleteI am going to agree with Austin here. Now, I won't deny that NSA is protecting us, I do believe that the ends don't justify the means in this case.
DeleteSarah, you brought up the point that this was a perfect example of the social contract. The reason I disagree with you on this is because the people never asked the NSA or anybody to start monitoring their communications. For the social contract to work the people need to give up their rights for government protection, but they need to consent to those rights being given up.
After 9/11 everyone got really scared and George Bush capitalized on that opportunity and passed the Patriot Act. This gave the government a lot more power in monitoring its citizens. Now, people are less scared and want to get their right to privacy back. But, it is much more difficult getting power back from the government than it is giving it to them.
I agree with Jackie; I am willing to give up my right to cell phone privacy as long as it helps protect the lives of fellow Americans. Corrine also brings up an excellent point of how if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. As long as the spying is strictly used for monitoring terrorism and nothing else it could be used as a perfect example of the Social Contract.
DeleteHowever, the problem that stems from this is that there is no proof that the NSA's spying is even effective. Also, it is highly doubted that they are using it solely on the search for terrorism. This then makes the NSA violate the Social Contract because it isn't doing anything for the good of the people.
Yes, I believe that one of the main arguments contrary to the NSA is that people believe that the NSA is using its power incorrectly/unethically. Instead of solely sticking to possible or suspected terrorists, the NSA could be simply spying on the regular people of the United States.
DeleteGigi brought up the point that there is no proof the NSA spying is even effective, and I would like to expound upon that a little. The NSA's efficacy has been nominal at best. William Binney, a former high official in the NSA, has stated that the tremendous size of the NSA’s haphazard collection of information is, in effect, “making the haystack so much bigger so that’s [sic] making it more difficult to find the needles.” Binney states that the NSA does not actively seek terrorist activity, but rather, it blindly takes in all information it can get. Binney attributes the failure to foil the Boston bombers to this over-extension. Similarly, terrorism expert Barry Rubins, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, claims that the NSA operates on the fallacy that “the more quantity of intelligence, the better it is for preventing terrorism.” Rubins cites the Boston bombings to prove this truth, stating that the United States completely overlooked Russian Intelligence warnings of the two Chechen terrorists that executed the Boston bombings. Thus, the NSA does not seek “red flags” as it should, and the incredible outreach of the NSA causes it to be even more harmful as it actually allows terrorism to persist. Forget ethics and comfort, the NSA is, in some cases, jeopardizing our security from terrorists. We should sacrifice few rights to this organization until it makes substantial changes.
DeleteJoe and Austin, I disagree with your perspective on this issue. To me, it is very simple. Either we allow the government to further protect us from both terrorists and domestic threats, or we remain obstinate and somewhat arrogant and wait for another terrorist attack, school shooting, etc. to occur. I hate to be so bleak about the matter, but the fact is that the US citizenry, including all of us, cannot and never will be able to prevent such attacks from happening. That leaves us with two options. We can go on living, constantly hoping that nothing devastating occurs, or we can give up a very small fraction of our individual rights, throw away the stubborn attitude, and truly pursue a safer nation in which every citizen is better protected.
DeleteI agree with Sarah that the NSA should be able to spy on us in some ways. They are trying to protect the country from terrorist attacks and other crimes. If a person isn’t doing anything illegal then they should not be bothered by the government knowing things about their life. I don’t think however that the government should waste time and money by spying on people who have not shown any signs of malicious intent. The government should not be suspicious of every person who comes to America that is from a “terrorist” country. Not ever y person that wears a turban is a terrorist like many people seem to think. People’s phones should only be tapped if they have shown signs of malevolent aspirations. I also think that The NSA should not waste their times on tracking small crimes that local law enforcement can handle. Suspected acts of terrorism should be tracked and only other very serious crimes that endanger citizens.
DeleteI disagree, I believe that the NSA should not have access to any personal document, message, etc at any one time unless they have a warrant to do so. I say this because the efforts of the have had marginal success at best. The NSA has stated they have prevented 13 “possible” terrorist attacks in American soil. When further questioned on their evidence, they gave none. The NSA cannot even support their claim that they have thwarted 13 “possible” attacks. If they cannot even defend their claim on stopping 113 attacks, then I would not like for them to have my personal information. There is also the fact that the NSA has had leaks of information in the past, and therefore cannot be trusted with information in the future. Therefore, due to their information amount of success and their failure in the past to contain their secrets, i would not like for the NSA to look at any American’s personal information unless they have a warrant to do so.
DeleteI disagree with you Matt. First of all, why would the NSA give away the proof to their claims, if you're complaining about leaked information. For all you know, they could have been connected with each other and maybe even future threats. Also, the NSA doesn't only look at personal calls and messages, they also pay a lot of attention to social media, which many groups communicate through. So many people put their lives on Facebook or Twitter without even realizing that they are publically giving the government personal information. So really, the government doesn't need a warrant to access that kind of information, because people already openly supply it to them. Also, the NSA doesn't collect every single message from everyone in the United States and analyze it; do you know how long that would take? It searches for key terms/words that would impose a threat. So people should stop thinking that the government is invading on their lives, because they're really only searching for threats to our country, and trying to protect the citizens, which it should be doing, according to the Social Contract.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it is too complex to all about gun control in an extremely black and white way. Allowing guns is important because it is a second amendment right. But disallowing guns could very possibly limit destruction (although there is not necessarily any proof to back this concept up). Personally, I think restricted access to certain weapons is an accurate response to this situation. We have to remember that when the second amendment was put into effect, there were no assault rifles that one could easily aquire. Better controlling where our weapons go, who has access to them, and who can achieve access to them is what might help solve this issue. Personal protection is a right, but its a catch 22 because allowing someone their right to personal protection might also be enabling them to be aggressive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Greg on this point. Gun control in the United States is a very complicated issue because they are protected by our second amendment right. People will also always cite the constitution as a reason for being against gun control. I believe that citing the constitution is a fallacy because the constitution is a living and breathing document. It is always changing or being modified based on the desires of the society. Therefore, the constitution is not set in stone and what may be outlawed in the constitution today could be legal in 30 years. I think that this issue should be addressed by banning weapons that are used to kill a lot of people very quickly, such as automatic rifles, but allowing weapons that are used for things such as hunting or can not do as much damage in a short amount of time. I think that when this amendment was put in place people wanted guns so they could protect themselves if the government ever attacked them or if they wanted to form a rebellion. I think that now, this would be irrelevant. Our military is too powerful for us to do anything about if they attacked us or we wanted to rebel. Guns now are mainly used on citizens by other citizens. I think that it would be smart to give up our right to bear arms (at least extremely dangerous ones) for more protection in our society.
DeleteI agree with both Greg and Joe and I believe that many people misinterpret the second amendment and fail to see the responsibility that comes with this right. As it's written, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right was intended to provide for the security of the state and not necessarily personal protection. However, given the changes in society since the constitution was passed and that we no longer have militias, the gun rights should be reevaluated. Especially in light of the unnecessary gun violence.
DeleteI agree with Greg, Joe and Alicia. Gun control is not guns or no guns. The government needs to limit the purchase of specific guns and then monitor the use of these guns. I believe that guns should be followed in a sense. The government needs to know where the weapons are as much as they can so I think that they should keep a record of who has what gun(s) and where they live (so they know where the guns are generally located). I know that not every weapon would be able to be tracked because there is a black market, but by tracking weapons individual rights would not technically be violated. I also think that it would be a good thing to focus on for the NSA. I wouldn’t mind if the NSA wanted to know what guns I had because I think that that information is more relevant to a search for terrorists than my grandma’s phone calls. I would appreciate this violation of my rights via the Social Contract more than I appreciate my phone calls being monitored.
DeleteI agree with Greg, Joe, Alicia, and Julia. Gun control isn’t getting rid of guns but CONTROLLING them. The adverse reaction whenever gun control is brought up is that “the government is trying to take away our guns” but really the goal is to have more stringent background checks, and other precautionary matters. Additionally, for a matter like this, sighting the constitution is irrelevant. The constitution had many parts that don’t apply today, like slavery, and women not being able to vote, and the need for a militia does not apply anymore either. The amendment allowed guns so that people could rebel against the government if they ever had to. This was made in a time when they had just recently overthrown another government so the amendment made perfect sense then. But now, it is a very different time and there is no need or desire to create a militia, so the amendment is irrelevant. While guns should not be taken away completely, there should definitely be more precautions placed on them to adapt to the modern world.
DeleteI agree with everyone about the issue of gun control. It is a very complicated issue and as Greg said, we cannot apply a generalized law towards the issue because it will help certain people and it will hurt others. This would violate the social contract because everyone has to follow the law equally but some people are being benefited more than others. People who live in open areas out west need guns for hunting and protecting themselves. If the government banned guns, it wouldn't be fair to them because the people living in those areas need them in their lives. However, if there were no gun control laws, problems with shootings would continue to persist in cities. I think that the idea of the NSA having records of what type of firearms are being bought is effective for people living in cities. However, this will be a grueling task for people who live out west. Even if they begin to hold these records, how can the NSA record information about the guns that people already have? And who garauntees that people won't hide their guns from the NSA? The NSA must create gun laws that will be fair for everyone otherwise it will be violating the social contract.
DeletePersonally, I think this amendment in the Constitution is outdated. I don't think that gun ownership should be an essential American right at all. But we can't exactly go back and take that amendment away.
DeleteMoving forward, I think the least we could do is create intense background checks and mental testing before selling guns. It's also very important to take into consideration the other members of the household who will interact with the gun owner (for example, kids with anger issues may have access to their parent's gun, creating a dangerous situation).
The problem that this presents, though, is that mental issues are not always evident when simply doing a background check. The government would have no way to tell that someone with extreme depression, for example, who never committed any crime in the past but simply suffers from the issue, could be dangerous when given a gun. It's hard to create restrictions due to the lack of knowledge about people. What if someone who already has a gun developed bipolar disorder later in life? Mental conditions are a delicate topic to approach, especially in correlation to gun control, but I strongly believe some sort of mental testing and multiple follow ups need to occur besides just a background check.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo briefly discuss the concept of looking at America as "one big team," I would like to relate to Adam Smith's capitalist view. Adam Smith essentially argued that America is not a singular unit. Smith clearly stated that capitalism, our economic system, is only effective when every individual is working for his or her own self. Individuals, especially Americans, are greedy by nature, and economically, they are supremely concerned with their own success. Smith further explained that by pursuing self interest, individuals are consequently helping their nation. But, let's face it, no one goes to work everyday with the goal of stimulating the economy of America. As a result, I do not primarily see America as a singular unit before a nation of separate individuals. First, we are individuals. Secondly, by no intention at all, we are a singular unit.
ReplyDeleteI agree to some extent, however, I believe the government must work as a unit so that it can function properly and continue the use of the social contract. If it does not work together (like ours pretty much does now...) then it cannot focus fully on fulfilling its part of the contract. Also,Capitalism is only one part of the puzzle, so you cannot focus solely on that. Rousseau pointed out the pressures of citizens to follow the social contract or risk being alienated by his or her peers. In this respect, I think Rousseau meant for the citizens to work as a group to keep each other in check. If one person has no money and another has a lot (as often happens in capitalism), that does not mean they do not effect each other at all.
DeleteI have to agree with you, Adam, on the idea of individual greed. Even though people advocate for a fix in the economy, no one is quite willing to make individual sacrifices for the good of the nation. Americans will always work in self-interest because self-assurance and success is a part of human nature. A secondary consequence of supporting the overall wealth of the nation is almost unintentional. Although we like to think of working towards a greater nation, united as a “big team”, the end priorities of all individuals will be just that, individual.
DeleteAnother question: do you believe the philosophes of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers of the USA would be proud of our country today?
ReplyDeleteAnother question: do you believe the philosophes of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers of the USA would be proud of our country today?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, hi Mallon! Second, I think this is a multi-pronged answer. Our founding fathers and enlightenment philosophers have much to be proud of as to our improvement. We have maintained a democratic government, decided by the people, with the general populous and their well being in mind. Our country has had its fair share of turmoil, yet through it all we still remain a united people. In the past, slavery divided our nation, really putting the "general will" to the test. As we all know, however, the general will was maintained, and slavery was abolished in accordance with the general will that we'd be better off without it. I do no believe, however, that our founding fathers would be very elated to see our country in its current state of disarray. We are a deadlocked government divided by political parties, with neither side budging on its stances. This is where I think our founding fathers would be disappointed because this ineffectiveness was not how our government was designed to function. Our politicians need to stop concerning themselves with what is best for them and focus more on what's best for the country and its people.
DeleteIsn't it wrong to blame politicians for being ineffective since we are the people who put those politicians in office? Okay well they still are to blame, but there are better reasons. The citizens are what fuel the two-party system and many just invariably vote for one party, unconcerned with the candidates themselves. Many don't vote at all. There's a problem with people not being educated enough in politics to be able to make the right decisions. People should be taking better initiative and be less apathetic, but it's not mostly their fault. There's lots of corruption to the point where it's hard to trust the candidates anymore either. Lots get into office from funding from big companies in exchange for "favors." There's no limit on contributions to political campaigns. That's obviously a problem and people don't know enough about it to get anything done (but that's because everyone who's benefitting from the corruption doesn't want us to know). The corruption standing in the way of our well-being is just kinda an aggregation of many years of capitalist greed. That's what I think the founding fathers would have to be upset about. But what's really upsetting is I don't know how it can even be avoided.
DeleteI would have to agree that the Founding Fathers would probably be relatively disappointed in how the country is stuck fighting itself instead of fixing the obvious problems it has. George Washington even said we should stay away from the party system in his Farewell speech, but look where we are now. The corruption of the government is because people vote for the side they always vote for instead of searching for the candidate that is the right choice and electing politicians that could work together. However, are there enough politicians willing to do that to make a difference?
DeleteI think Brandon is entirely right with the whole party system point. On the other hand, I believe they would be proud of the magnificent development we've created, but also a bit ashamed of the enormous gap between rich and poor as well. Even more of the fact that the government is in such a stalemate that it would temporarily shut itself down rather than compromise.
DeleteHobbes would be mortified. This is almost the exact opposite of absolute sovereignty. If an absolute sovereign were a man driving a car, our system could be compared to two children wresting for control of the steering wheel.
I think Locke would pretty well appreciate the concept of our government. Maybe not how it's managed, but the concept is designed fairly well to ensure that the general will is the followed.
Josh, I think even Locke might be floored by how our government is. He emphasized the idea of rebellions if the government isn't acting as the people want it to. In the United States, however, we just sit here complaining that nothing is ever done, yet we vote for the same people time and time again. That is not even showing them they are wrong in a civil way that doesn't involve a rebellion. But I do agree that that is how Hobbes and the Founding Fathers would probably feel.
DeleteFor sure the founding fathers and philosophers would be impressed in the magnitude of improvement our country has experienced. Over the course of 200 or so years we've changes in society that would seem absurd to any of the older generations. A whole race of people was liberated from the shackles of slavery. A whole gender went from being held uneducated to equals to their male counterparts. We've seen our country change drastically and I think it's safe to say that the change will continue. The only thing I think the philosophers would shake their heads at is the inherent selfishness and stubbornness in people today. Materialism has driven us to become cutthroat and self serving to a point that politics have changed from "what's best for the nation" to "what's best for me." At this point, Rousseau would probably cry at the fact that instead of relinquishing our rights for the good of society, we relinquish as little as possible for our own selves. The fact that our country can't get laws past because partisan politics have become so obstinate in refusing to listen to the other party is disgusting. Even after centuries of positive change, it seems necesary to revert to those values which our founding fathers valued like compromise! We've advanced so much but somehow have regressed so far, maybe looking into the past is the best course of action for our society.
ReplyDeleteNick, I agree with everything that you wrote. The Enlightenment was centered around the philosophy of challenging the government when it is not serving the good of the people. There is no arguing that America has not personified this philosophy in its history. As Nick said, we have fought slavery, racial prejudice, suffrage restrictions, and many other social wrongs of the US government. As a result, we are now the most socially progressive nation in the world and we try to uphold those principals in other countries worldwide. As Nick also pointed out, the only thing that the philosophers would not be happy with is our newly found, inherent greed. The concept of community that was present during the Enlightenment has largely disintegrated and left a society of individuals that look out for themselves. Luckily, so far, society has still been able to function as a unit for the most part. However, it seems that slowly the concept of giving up rights for communal benefit is all but disappearing until the only thing left will be individual ambition, which the Enlightenment philosophers would have been discouraged by.
DeleteBoth of you have very valid points, but I do not think they would be as proud as you say due to the fact that our country could be so much better. Although we have had numerous achievements, we have also had numerous failures. If the American people just listened and stuck to the philosophies of enlightenment and the founding fathers thoughts this country would be so much better than it is now. The corruption in politics and businesses everywhere is ridiculous. You can say it is human nature to only look out for yourself and only doing things with yourself in mind, but if everyone could see the genius of the social contract, the USA would be the strongest country in the world by far (even more than now). One can argue that competition and incentives would not exist if people followed the social contract, but that is incorrect. If everyone had the best intent of the group in mind they would do what's necessary in order to help the group prosper in every way possible. The USA has not performed to its full potential, and for these reasons I believe that the founding fathers and philosophers would not be too impressed with our country.
DeleteZach, I agree with you that America has not achieved its true potential throughout its history. However, America has very much stuck to the philosophies of the Enlightenment, including the installation and maintenance of a social contract very much like the one Locke spelled out. When the government has acted wrongly, the people have rebelled and fought for change and reform. America has, both politically and economically, stuck to the ideas of Locke and Smith. The twist is that the philosophies of Locke and Smith have been proven to not work as effectively as they were imagined during the Enlightenment, as the government is filled with corruption. The discussion with a past Enlightenment philosoph really would be interesting, because we have followed the means, but the ends have come out very differently. Who's to say what their reaction would be to that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAdam, I agree with you. The population and size of our country has increased drastically, but our leaders have still found a way to apply the social contract, created 250 years ago, to current America. Instead of replacing an outdated constitution, our leaders have amended it and applied it to the current American landscape. The constitution did not clearly delineate its views on slavery, and instead of replacing it, our nation’s leaders amended it while still preserving the social contract. On the topic of corruption in government, our nation’s leaders are now tasked with solving this growing problem while still maintaining the social contract. My solutions are to lower the salaries of politicians and have more informed voting.
DeletePure freedoms can sometimes be dangerous. The philosophers of the Enlightenment thought that the pursuit of self-interest would benefit society, produce moral judgments and allow everyone in society to be happy. There were many benefits that came with the idea of the enlightenment. However, too much freedom can be dangerous. There needs to be a balance between the amount of restrictions one has and the amount of freedom they are given. With the creation of the internet people believe that they have the freedom to write or post whatever they want. Everyone on the internet does whatever they want because they’re “anonymous,” whereas if someone were to say something out loud in public everyone would know who said it.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that it is funny that people think that they can post whatever they want, whether horrible or kind, but they do not have the guts to admit that it is them. This power has almost made society cowardly because it has given them the chance to say what they think online with no filter, although they refuse to say it in person, face to face. I understand that face to face encounters aren't always possible, but at the same time, if you can't say something to someone's face I don't believe you have the right to say it at all. Freedom of speech was important to the founding fathers because of their oppression by Great Britain but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that they would be prosecuted. I think this cowardice is dangerous because it is creating a generation of people who cannot standup for what they believe.
DeleteI believe that the NSA program should have access to our communications on the internet, over the phone, and through other means of basic communication. People must be responsible over the internet and over the phone, and by acting responsibly they will not have anything to worry about. However, I disagree with how the NSA collects, sorts, and uses information. The NSA is too secretive on how they collect, sort and use the information. Without Edward Snowden, a hero in my opinion, we wouldn’t even recognize the NSA program for what it is today. Did you know that the NSA can turn on a cell phone or computers camera and microphone using a roving bug? The NSA also monitors relationships, with over 3,000 cases last year of serious privacy laws breached. It’s scary to think how much we don’t even know. Transparency is needed into the NSA’s activities over U.S. citizens. Even more so would be independent oversight into the program. The oversight could be a committee from multiple private corporations or a congressional committee. We have already learned through Edward Snowden that the NSA cannot be trusted. In conclusion, I believe that the NSA should have access to our basic communications, but transparency and independent oversight is needed over how the NSA collects, sorts, and uses citizen’s information. With transparency into the program, the NSA can be lawful towards citizens and useful in combating illegal activities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with grant in the sense that the NSA’s activities are frightening. The amount of information that they could find on you is startling. I also agree that The NSA should be allowed to gather this information. If you don’t have anything to hide that a federal agency would find pertinent enough to look into, then why would you care? Its all in an attempt to make us safer as a whole. What I don’t agree with is grant’s idea that the NSA’s methods should be transparent. It seems to me like that defeats the purpose. If Criminals know exactly how they are being watched, they are going to avoid those sources of communications. The NSA’s work in counterterrorism and crime prevention is similar in my mind to the work of the CIA in that in order to be affective, they need to be secretive. I personally don’t have an issue with the Nsa.
DeleteDelehey, you ask "if you don’t have anything to hide that a federal agency would find pertinent enough to look into, then why would you care?" Allow me to explain. CNN money estimates that the NSA’s budget is “likely to be at least $10 billion per year.” The NSA claims to have prevented 50 terrorist attacks (a false statistic, this number was later admitted to be only 13 that had "some nexus to the U.S.") since the 9/11 attacks, in which 3000 people died. If each of the 50 terrorist attacks were as drastic as 9/11, a total of 150,000 would have died from terrorism over the span of 13 years (11538 deaths/year). Again that figure is assuming 50 more 9/11's happened. This number pales in comparison to the number of occasions of death from cancer in the United States per year (574,743). However, the funding for the National Cancer Institute, which is an agency that is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and coordinates the U.S. National Cancer Program, is only $4.9 billion, less than half of what the government provides the NSA. To answer your falsely rhetorical question, the reason why you should be concerned is that your money is going towards funding an organization that does a negligible amount of good for you.
DeleteI agree with both of you in certain aspects.
DeleteMatt, I agree with you in the sense that the NSA should be given a certain level of freedom as far as looking into the personal lives of people, but only if they show that it truly is working to counteract terrorism. Only once some significant and legitimate statistics are present will I believe that the NSA deserves access into our lives.
Drew, I agree with you in the sense that the anti-terrorist work done by the NSA is not nearly as effective as most of us are led to believe. Even if they do prevent terrorist attacks to some degree, I believe that we should be focusing our efforts elsewhere, not spying on US citizens. As Drew implied earlier, we should focus on more important things, such as researching cures for cancer.
In terms of the Gun debate. Let's throw out the 2nd amendment for a second. How do other countries deal with guns. Bring in Australia and Israel. Is there anything to learn from their policies?
ReplyDeleteThe gun debate is a testy issue. Our nation's 2nd amendment is a dated piece of legislation that needs to be adjusted for our 21st century environment. 300 years ago, people lived a more uncertain lifestyle and guns were a useful tool for the household for food and safety. Today, we do not live in log cabins like the pioneers or hunt our food each night. I believe tighter legislation and better background checks are essential in protecting modern citizens from unnecessary and heartbreaking events such as Sandy Hook. I know little about Australia and Israel, except that Israel mandates military service and so gun laws in their nation should be different from non-mandatory service nations, but I would like to talk briefly about the United Kingdom. In the UK, the numbers are regularly skewed by the government. The UK has a total ban on guns and this issue is commonly discussed on CNN and other news networks as a pinnacle of gun control. The streets of London still experience terrible violence. In the UK, a shooting is recorded for 1+ deaths, and does not tell if it was a murder or a mass slaughter. Thus, skewed numbers give a poor picture of the truth in the UK. I hope that our future gun legislation includes mandates that the government tell the truth, and keep the public aware of true data regarding violence so we can tell if our legislation is working, unlike in the United Kingdom where everything is often obscured by attempts from the government to reduce fear.
DeleteWhen researching Australia's gun policies, the top result was asking when will the US learn from Australia, in regards to stricter gun control. In Australia, citizens must have a reason to own a gun, the gun must be registered and the person has to have a license. The types of guns are also strictly controlled. These strict rules resulted from Australia's most tragic shooting that occurred in 1996. So in Australia it took one major shooting to change the gun laws, while in America we have several major shootings but still no meaningful changes in our gun control. By comparison, Israel also has stricter gun laws, as a person is not allowed to own any kind of firearm without a license. To get a gun license one must live in Israel for 3 consecutive years, have no criminal record, no history of a mental illness, be over a specific age and pass a weapon training course. These licenses also have to be renewed every 3 years. As a result of these restrictive policies, gun possession in Israel is low compared to gun possession within the United States. I think that America could learn from the policies of Australia and Israel by putting more restriction on who can actually legally own a gun and the types they can own.
DeleteI believe that guns should be strictly regulated. Australia and Israel both have fairly strict regulation on guns, and it has led to fewer gun related homicides. We may also look to England, with some of the strictest policies, and at the same time the lowest gun related homicide rate in the developed world. Frankly, there is no need in modern society to own such a dangerous weapon. The risks outweigh the few benefits.
DeleteNow, exceptions may be made for sport, but that too could be regulated. Like, all weapons must be kept at the range and locked up, or something in that direction. But in general, guns are dangerous and unnecessary. It is entirely logical to give them up if it will make the country that much more safe to live in.
NEW TOPIC:
ReplyDeleteHow far should the Social Contract extend? To the unborn?
The new push by some members of the right is the include Personhood Amendments in the law that protect the rights of the fetus in various situations. Some of this includes protections such as from an angry father who wishes to end the pregnancy without the mothers consent. Some of these laws would prevent women from getting abortions even though the pregnancy will severly impact the health of the mother. Sometimes, women with addiction issues are jailed for compromising the health of the unborn child.
Should this be covered under our Social Contract?
Link for more info: http://www.npr.org/2013/11/21/246534132/personhood-in-the-womb-a-constitutional-question
Our social contract should not extend equal rights to a fetus. The debate on abortion is really one of great frustration and futility because people's opinions are typically very firm on the issue and often rooted in religion which can get touchy. Personally, as an individual with very liberal views, I do not think that the laws of the social contract should extend to the unborn. I know that I will be scientifically challenged on this because I know I am technically incorrect, but in my view, a fetus does not become a person until they are physically born and independent of the mother. Women, under all circumstances, should have the right to get an abortion. This is America, the "land of the free," where people should, without difficulty, be entitled to make whatever personal decisions about their body they want. This debate always turns religious, but let's really consider this situation without justifying our opinions based on religion. If a pregnant woman is informed that her pregnancy will be severely dangerous to her, then she has every right in the world to choose her own health over that of her unborn. It is a difficult situation and a very sad one at that, but before extending to the unborn, a mother must be entitled to her own part of the social contract; the ability to make a personal choice about her body.
DeleteI believe that pregnant women should not be punished for harm that they have caused to an unborn child. Although I think that laws punishing pregnant women for causing certain defects due to their addictions may be suitable for the effects that it has on the child, the punishment of jail time is in no way or form helpful to the situation. First, instead of jail time, the mother should at the most be forced to go to addiction therapy because at least this will benefit the child who can then be raised by a healthy mother. Second, I believe that punishing just the woman is absolutely unfair. If the mother has a severe addiction then I would assume that the father would also have some sort of addiction that would affect his ability to be a good father. If this is the case then I believe that both parents should have to recover from their addictions in order to raise their child. I believe that forcing the parents to recover from their addictions is necessary in order to make up for any harm that their addictions have caused to the newborn child.
DeleteJust to clarify my above argument, I do not consider forcing rehab on the parents a punishment because it would allow both the parents and the child to live healthier lives.
DeleteI agree with Adam and Jarrett that the social contract should not extend to an unborn fetus. Babies in the womb don’t even begin to gain consciousness until around the 24th week, so they can’t possibly develop a “will” until at least the third trimester. Taking an “I see, therefore I am” approach, the fetus should not have the same constitutional rights that its mother has extended to it. I disagree with Jarrett in his idea that rehab should be forced upon the parents in the case of drug addiction or other abuse. If illegal substances are used by a parent, the same punishment should be inflicted upon them as if they were not pregnant. When the baby is born, I believe the government has the right to turn the child over to a social worker to deem if the parents are suitable to be parents or not. As far as the social contract goes, the parents should be willing to give up the rights of their (born) child for the advancement of the general will, which concerns the safety of the child and its integration into society.
DeleteI agree that parents should be held responsible for harm done to their baby but disagree with Jarrett rehab solution. Forcing rehab onto addict parents is slight unfeasible and will not have a profound effect. The intense psychological and physical desires that make up an addiction make it unlikely that parents will make significant life changes just because they are forced to. Regardless of the fetus being morally religiously or scientifically considered a person it does have some rights in the form of protection from its mother. In turn I also believe that in the land of freedom, the right to abortion is just as societally important as any other right.
DeleteFrom a females point of view, I believe pregnant women should have control entirely over what they do with their fetus. It is their right to get an abortion if they wish to. If a girl was raped, for example, I don't think it is just to expect her to give birth to, potentially raise, be judged, and spend thousands of dollars on a child.
DeleteIn regards to the social contract and a women's affect on a fetus, I think this can go either way. If a women drinks and partakes in the use of drugs while impregnated, i think she has and unstable mental state to do that in the first place and should be punished. A child should not have to live with various diseases and birth defects for the rest of it's life because of a choice it's mother made while the fetus had no choice in it and no form of protection; after all, it's the governments job to protect them, right? However, on the contrary, if an angry father wishes to end a pregnancy, I think both the mother and unborn should be protected, while the father should be punished. A women should not be charged for crimes to her fetus if, for example, she gets in a car accident and kills both of them or just the child. Those at fault should be trialed and in certain cases I don't always see it as being the pregnant women's fault.
There is currently a case regarding this issue in Texas right now. A woman who was 14 weeks pregnant was declared both legally and medically brain dead but the hospital has refused to remove life support due to a texas law regarding advanced directives and deferring to saving the life of the fetus. Experts have responded that the fetus could not be born alive and the hospital is misapplying the law as the patient is brain dead. The patients husband, parents, and a judge have requested/ordered that the woman be allowed to die with dignity. The woman's lawyer poses as good point as he fears the precedent this may be setting for future cases involving brain-dead female patients. This will have a significant impact on how the social contract is interpreted. The life of the fetus is being preserved even though there is no hope for life, while the wishes of the patient and her family are not being met. I agree with Rachel in that women should have a right to their own body, especially in this case where the wishes of the mother have been made clear.
DeleteHonestly, it's pretty much misogynistic if a man can do whatever he wants, but a woman loses her rights as soon as she becomes pregnant. Plus, a fetus is almost being valued here more than actual humans are. The fetus is so important, but as soon as the kid is born, it can starve in a hole for all anyone cares. If pregnant women were reprimanded for doing drugs, then that punishment would logically have to continue through the baby's childhood. And what about the dad? He probably has addiciton issues, too. (But that might be irrelevant because he probably also deserted the mom.) Most women don't have the ability to go through pregnancy. It costs money to even give birth let alone raise a child.
DeleteI don’t believe that rights of a fetus should be protected under the Social Contract. As Jenn said, “I see, therefore I am.” A fetus is not capable of making decisions for itself. It relies completely on its mother for its life therefore what happens to the fetus should be under the control of its mother. The same goes for children that have been born from birth through the first few years of elementary school, until they can actually fend for themselves. Small children do not have any rights that can be manipulated by the Social Contract that aren’t already monitored by the parents and neither does a fetus. The life of a child is the responsibility of his/her parents. It doesn’t matter if the parents are drug addicts or doctors; they are responsible for their children. And as a parent, people must make the best decision for their children from the moment they are conceived whether means getting an abortion or making them eat applesauce instead of donuts.
DeleteThe social contract should not defend the rights of the fetus, and I believe the public should wholeheartedly support the choice to abort a fetus. Even those who appear unaffected by abortion actually are. Various studies, including one developed in the book Freakonomics, show an inverse relationship between abortion and crime rates. One compelling correlation is that 18 years after the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade, crime began to decrease across the whole nation. Of course, there may be other determinants in crime, so this correlation is weak. A more convincing correlation is that some states, states that legalized abortion three years before Roe vs. Wade, saw a similar crime decrease three years before the rest of the nation. Further, states that had high abortion rates in the 1970s saw greater crime decrease than did those with lesser abortion rates. This relationship remained true even when factors like prison populations, number of police, and poverty rates were factored into the study. With these ideas in mind, the social contract would naturally lend itself to unconditionally supporting abortion. Thus, I believe that fetuses are a part of the social contract; they give us their lives and we get a safer society (they got the short end of the stick on this one).
DeleteI agree with Drew and everyone else who believes that the social contract should not defend the rights of a fetus, but they are still included because they give up there life for the good of the group. It is really the pregnant woman's choice to decide whether or not she wants to get an abortion because it is her fetus. No one else should have any say in the argument because it does not concern them. Why force a woman to give birth to a child she cant care for or just doesn't want? For numerous reasons everyone has stated this is the best option because it will lead to less crime, less unwanted, neglected children, and less disabled children. For these reasons the fetus should not have any rights.
DeleteI agree with Rachel that women should be able to decide what to do with their pregnancy, to have the child or abort it because it is their body and ultimately their decision. However, some women do continue to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant and I do not think that is right. Once a woman decides she is going to go through with the pregnancy I think it’s very important the health of the fetus is always considered. Women who continue to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant disrespect the rights of their own fetus because they are most likely negatively harming the fetus. Because of the negativity they can bring upon their fetus, I think women should be held accountable for what they are doing to their child. This does not necessarily mean that the women have to go to jail; I agree with Jarrett that it is a good idea to send women in this situation to rehab to keep both the mother and the fetus healthy.
DeleteI agree with Rachel and Kate that women deserve the right to choose if they would like to keep THEIR child or not. I believe women should be in charge of this government decision because in reality, whether or not a fetus is kept or aborted, it has nothing to do with the male. The fetus is a part of a female's body; therefore, the owner of that "property" or baby ultimately should have the decision. I think a woman knows what is best for her and the baby inside of her. I understand that there are special cases such as women who have been raped or unstable women who probably could not take care of a child, and I think those types of situations should be dealt with individually and separately. But for the most part, women should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their own bodies. Why should a congressman get to decide the fate of a fetus? They can easily say that you are not allowed to have an abortion because they will never, under any circumstances, have to be put in that position to decide if they should get an abortion or not. I think certain women are strong enough to make that decision for themselves.
DeleteI completely agree with the above statements regarding right to life (or lack thereof).
DeleteIn correlation to the recent issue over the 14 week pregnant, brain dead woman and her husband - I think sometimes the rules around a fetus's right to live need to be changed. In this particular situation, the woman is unable to make her own choice about whether to keep or abort the baby. But the father is still there. So are the woman's parents.
What do you guys think? Who should make the decision for her - her husband, or her parents?
Personally, in this situation, I'd say her husband has the right to choose. He apparently had spoken to his wife about what would happen if she were ever in a situation like this and she told him she wouldn't want to live that way.
I think it's cruel to keep the woman's body alive simply as a carrier for the baby - especially if she would have wanted to be let go.
The fight over right to life has been a major issue for a long time now and I continuously argue that it is always the woman's choice, primarily. The debate over when a child is really "alive" is pretty vague, too. I think that once a heartbeat is detected, the baby should be born. But women should have the choice to abort or keep the fetus before then.
It's hard to set rules about abortion in stone because there are so many different situations that arise. Unfortunately, most of these cases will just have to be taken to court to be settled there. I doubt a definite conclusion about abortion rights will be reached in the near future.
I agree with Adam and Jarrett that social contract should not include an unborn fetus. The laws against abortion are usually rooted in religion, and the arguments for these anti abortion laws are religious ones as well. However, America is a country of varying religions, and values, so religion should not play a part in making decisions. While abortion is something that should always be discouraged, it should be up to the women to decide what she wants to do with her own body. Preventing women from doing this would actually be taking away her rights under social contract, if the pregnancy would be harmful to her. It would not be fair for people in congress to make decisions for people they know nothing about and have nothing in common with. Also, I feel that jailing women for having addiction issues would just exacerbate the issue. The woman with the addiction is obviously not in the best current state to raise a child; so jailing her would only make her life and the life of the fetus worse. They argue they want to protect the fetus, but jailing the mother would only make its life worse. They are so caught up in their religious issues, against drugs and abortion, that there is no concern with how these laws will actually impact the lives of the mother and the fetus. Instead of punishing the addicted mothers, they should work on providing rehab and drug education.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA is not as big of a threat as people think. The NSA openly stated to 60 minutes that they are not spying directly on more than 60 US citizens. I believe it is worth the NSA spying, even if they did spy on us, because I do not have anything to hide. People that are that protective of their personal information should not have a Facebook, Twitter, and should not be posting on Blogger. The information that we put online, through our intellectual information or even just our birthdays, is open source in the age of social media. Even more private information I am willing to share, because I am not a threat and know none who might be a threat. What is the big fear? You have to ask yourself if you have done anything wrong, and if it is worth hiding that at the possible risk that the NSA misses a piece of information that could save thousands of US lives. I agree that Americans have rights to life, liberty, and property, but the NSA is not taking away our life, or our freedom and property. It is solely observing our lives, making sure to protect our freedoms, and helping keep our property safe.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA is a necessary evil to combat terrorism. First off, it is foolish to think that the NSA is looking at everyone's texts, calls, etc. Yes they are in a database but chances are they will never be looked at, unless you're suspected of being a high-profile criminal such as a murderer or terrorist, in which case, provided you're not actually one of those things, your calls and texts will help to prove you innocent. It would be nice if the NSA was not necessary but in this day and age with the messed up world we live in it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs far as gun control goes, limiting gun ownership would have little to no effect on preventing these unfortunately frequent open-fire shootings. Most of the time the guns are bought off of the black market or attained in other illegal ways. What good would it be to make the system more strict if the system itself is not failing? Also just because some people abuse guns does not mean they need to be outlawed. People abuse cough syrup, should Delsym be removed from pharmacy shelves? If we outlaw certain types of guns then people will just get them from the black market. After all, if someone is going to open fire into a group of people, would the legality of their weapon really concern them?
I agree with most of your points on both topics David, however I do not totally agree with your opinion on gun control. Most of what you are saying is true, but it still would not be a bad idea to put some laws into place. Having background checks would help this problem more than doing nothing would in my opinion. As you have said there are still black markets and ways to get around this, but this will still make it somewhat more difficult for guns to get into the wrong hands. Having this law is just a part of our social contract. Giving up your personal information before you buy a gun, in order to make our country a little bit safer.
DeleteZach, the problem with the universal background check is that if you look at past mass shootings, those who did buy their weapons legally had no "red flags" on their record. They would have passed the new background checks as well. Often it is someone with psychiatric disorders and under current law a psychiatrist cannot report these issues unless there is a threat to the patient or others, and this would mean the patient would have to state he was feeling suicidal or violent. If those laws change, and psychiatrists can more freely share information about their patients, the universal background checks may be practical. But this would deeply affect the therapist-patient confidentiality so the patient would not reveal as much and the therapist would have no red flags to report, so that wouldn't work either.
DeleteFinal Additional question for this blog:
ReplyDeleteWhat obligation does our nation have to other nations? Do we have a responsibility to ensure that the ideas of the Enlightenment and the principles of our nation are extended to other nations?
Should we intervene in Syria? Egypt?
Is the Drone program in Afghanistan/Pakistan just?
Should the Social Contract extend beyond our country's borders?
Personally, I think the social contract was made for the US. I don’t believe it is necessary for our country to impose our beliefs onto other countries. With Syria for example, I have just read multiple articles that explain that some Syrians do not want American intervention. Many Syrians believe America is only intervening for our personal goals, instead of trying to help. Ex: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-syria-20130909,0,2925110.story. I think it is only okay for America to intervene in other countries if the majority of the country has expressed a want or need for help. Other than that, America should focus on America instead of trying to fix everyone else. The social contract should only extend to other borders if there is an open invitation or a complete necessity for help.
DeleteI think to answer whether we should apply the social contract to other nations would be very difficult in and of itself, but I don't think we necessarily have to because it seems what's best for our nation is to treat other nations justly. Imperialism is usually only short-sighted and ends up causing bigger problems for America later. What's best for the people of America would be to have good foreign relations.
DeletePeople may think that we should intervene in some Middle East countries to help fight Terrorism, but the Terrorism is there because of our intervention in the first place. To give just one example, in the 1950s we overthrew the Iranian leader to instill a Pro-American Shah. This only angered the Iranians and caused the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which put Ayatollah Khomeini into power who hated America. This problem doesn’t only apply to Terrorism. We overthrew Batista, dictator of Cuba, because he had intents to minimize the presence of America’s tourist industry in Cuba. Fidel Castro took his place.
This type of stuff always give us economic benefits, but a bit later end up having worse consequences. So for the sake of our own citizens, we should be treating other countries with respect.
I don’t think the United States has any obligation to intervene in other country’s issues. I think that we should make it our priority to protect our country and our people before we go into other countries and take on more than we can handle. American issues should always be put before the issues of other countries. If the source of American issues is in fact located in another country then we should intervene and do what is best for our country. As for Syria, no one intervened in the American Civil War so why should we intervene in theirs? The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest battles in American history having the highest percentage Americans deaths out of any war America has ever fought in. I think we should allow Syria to work it out. America eventually worked out its problems without any other countries intervening and bossing us around. I understand that we have reasons for wanting to attack Syria, wanting to teach them a lesson about using weapons that result in a massive amount of deaths. But no one attacked America after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that had a much larger impact. With time comes technology and improvements. We cannot stop weapons from becoming stronger, that’s just what happens. Weapons change and that is what gives us machine guns and atomic bombs. Some weapons we use, others we don’t, but we still have access to them. Syria should be left alone. We don’t need to get involved in another unnecessary war. The same goes for Egypt. We need to leave people alone. Most problems have solutions they just take time to figure out.
DeleteAs for the Social Contract, it is an agreement between the people of a country and their government, which means that America has no right to spy on people of another country. America does however have the right to watch its people when they leave the country. They may not be protected by the Social Contract but through the Social Contract America is able to protect the people that remain in the country. By this logic I believe we have the right to fly drones over Afghanistan and Pakistan if we are using them to track our people and not the Afghani and Pakistani people. Those countries are responsible for their own people and if we need information we should be getting it from the government not taking it for ourselves. The Social Contract is meant to protect our people not to harass people in another country.
I believe America has a responsibility to uphold and promote the Social Contract around the world. The argument of whether or not world intervention is the best option for America is very similar to that of the NSA's spying. Essentially, the government, throughout its history, has assumed the role of policeman of the world. Whether the citizenry approves of it really doesn't matter because America is not stepping aside from foreign intervention anytime soon. We have made both too many allies and too many enemies to abruptly remove ourselves from foreign intervention. The government, long ago, realized a choice it had to make. We could idly watch tragedy, tyranny, and crimes against humanity occur while the moral landscape of our earth quickly turned to one of perpetuated hatred. Or, we could surrender some economic power, accrue debt, and make the world as free from malevolence as possible. As an American citizen, I am very glad we chose the latter. People often cite the current debt as a rebuttal to the argument supporting world intervention, but to all of you that feel that way, let me ask you a question: How would you feel if innocent people, women and children, your friends and family more specifically, were regularly executed for no just reason, while America, fully capable of saving thousands of innocence lives, sat in a false state of ignorance on the peaceful side of the globe? Empathy is often hard to come by, but when realized, opinions change very quickly.
DeleteI think that the US has no obligations to any other country. The only time we should intervene is when another country is a threat to us or we directly benefit from it. It is silly to waste our money and resources on other nations. The social contract and the other enlightenment ideas are not intended for the whole world, just the USA. Therefore, the best thing to do is to protect and enforce this ideas and principles in our own country. We have enough problems of our own as it is, so why help other countries, when we could be helping ourselves.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe our nation, as being the superpower of the world, has a responsibility to uphold in protecting other innocent nations from unjust tyranny. This is not taking sides for gain, like in Iran or Syria, but protecting a victim from an aggressor. We do not have a responsibility to force our economic policies like enlightenment on other nations, but we can advocate aid that can be given to newly formed states looking to try this ideology, like the Marshall plan of the cold war era. I do not believe it is our right to intervene in Syria or Egypt, as there is no one true aggressor. And on the drone program, I do believe a limited intervention of this technology should be used in high priority areas, such as the borders of Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteDrew, I agree with you that we should protect truly innocent people from harm, regardless of location. Also, we should not try and impose our policies on whichever nation we assist, as our system is tailored to fit us, and may not be nearly as effective for a foreign country. I take Iraq as an example. We came in and gutted its infrastructure of what we deemed bad, and then imposed our democratic government upon them. We overstepped our bounds here, giving ourselves power beyond our real control. The same thing goes with economic policies. Many nations simply do not respond positively to a capitalist system. Besides, most of the countries that need assisting are underdeveloped nations, and a capitalist system would do little good. When we try and install our own systems on the people we help, this is where we walk the fine line of right and wrong, and we have to ask ourselves if what we are doing is in our best interest, or in the people we help's best interest.
DeleteI believe that the US should absolutely not intervene into foreign nations in crises regardless of their "innocence". It is simply not our responsibility to intervene and take control of another country's issues. Drew, you say that we should not force the country in need to take up our economic policies, but what should we do then? It isn't like we can just easily remove the "evil" tyranny and then leave without making any changes. Also, we have completely different views on how to run a country compared to other countries so what gives our country the right to decide what is best for others? We are struggling ourselves to maintain economic stability and a cooperative government, so we certainly do not hold the key to a successful nation. Unfortunately, a little thing called the Industrial Complex forces us to find areas to start wars and revolutions in order to prevent the fall of our economic system that depends so much on military spending.
DeleteI believe America serves as an excellent interventionist state. As Drew says, we should not intervene solely for economic benefit. Our economy is already supported when we intervene through the stimulation of the military-industrial complex that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. When we protect others who are being victimized, we are protecting ourselves economically. Plus, the added benefit of a large coalition that already exists against Iran and Syria shows that we are not alone. We cannot afford a unilateral engagement, but a multilateral force is acceptable.
DeleteI believe the United States has no right to intervene when a country is at war with itself. As pointed out by Jarrett, we cannot pick what is best for others to do. While trying to fight for the oppressed the United States just oppressed other groups by saying what they can and cannot do. Plus the groups we fight against do not listen to just word alone which brings in large military expenses that we cannot afford with our current economy. The only time we should have a right to interfere with other countries is when the conflict leaves a country’s border and they begin to threaten the United States or our allies. Also we should be able to interfere when our own citizens are in danger like currently in Russia. There have been threats towards the Olympic games that give us the right to be concerned about the men and women we are sending over for an athletic event. It is justified to have resources in Russia to protect the United State Citizens because we are not trying to change Russia over a long period of time and are only taking these measures to protect our own citizens.
DeleteI agree with Jarrett and Abby in that the US does not need to intervene other foreign countries and has no right to. Due to America having $17.3 trillion worth of debt, there is no reason America needs to spend more money by interventing into other countries. By doing this, America only gains more debt, worsening our economy. America has countless issues of its own that we need to deal with before policing the world and helping out other countries. The Social Contract should only portain to the United States. An example of this is through Syria; many people living in Syria do not even want America to invade. Rather, they believe America is only doing this for the benefits of our own nation. Instead of invading other countries, America needs to focus on America for the time being and create solutions to our own problems. Invading other countries only causes more problems for the future, sometimes resulting in war. If a country was being completely demolished and expressed their need for America's help, then yes, America should invade. However, invasions that are unneccessary and even unwanted by people in that country should not occur.
DeleteAlright well I do not believe that the United States holds any sort of responsibility to protect "innocent" countries. Think of it this way, America earned its own freedom with very little assistance except from the French (who have historically been militarily weak). America should intervene in wars or conflicts when the general good of the world is at stake (i.e. WW2, WW1, etc). The United States has enough economic problems as it is, and if the government declares war or sends aid to a foreign place, then people may rebel in the U.S., just like during the Vietnam conflict. If the United States were in a more economically stable state, then maybe we should help other countries; however, the amount of improvement America needs is significant, and since America is imperialistic, it comes before others. Having allies is important, but taking itself into consideration first is the best thing for America at this point in time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete