Security vs. Liberty

After comparing Huxley's A Brave New World and V I do agree with the general assertion that security and liberty tend to be at opposition with one another. I don't think that it should be this way and I hope that there is a possibility for that to change. However I have little hpe for a system to be create that would provide people with all of the liberties that they feel they deserve and also the security that people need in order to enjoy those liberties. In both of these fictional worlds the liberty of themembers of the societies are limited but only in A Brave New World do they feel secure as well because they are controlled through genetic conditioning as opposed to fear.
The discussion that we had in class the other da about control through phameceuticals I found to be very interesting. similar the the world that Huxley created drugs are becoming more commonly used as a means of normalizing and controling the behavior of children or to alter the mindset of a person in a way that is supposed to make them feel or behave better. the world that we are living in could very well spiral down into won that is as controlled as a BNW which is scary. Drugs are becoming the way to deal with rambunctious kis who are just that kids they are supposed to have lots of energy. It is also becoming a way of continuing the a divide between the fortuante and the less fortunate. For example, in my high school it was not uncommon for students to be diagnosed with ADD or different learning disorders that enabled them to get extra time of all exams. Everyone would do well if they had unlimited time to write two essays as opposed to one hour. It is supposed to be a way of levelling the playing feild but if these kids didn't have parents that thought and were able to get there kids tested for these learning disabilities they would not have gotten this treatment. I do beleive that the dependency on drugs that has been created in our society is a nother means of control that will ultimately limit our security without adding to our liberty.

V For Vendetta

I really enjoyed watchiing this movie I ahd never seen it before and found it very interesting. One of the things that stood out to me was V's statement that you cannot kill an idea but that you can kill the man and how an ideology is stronger than ony one person because it cannot be killed the way that a person can. i feel that he showed how an ideology can be unifying through the use of his masks. He tried to give a voice to the voiceless with his tactics. Ultimately his attacks are no better than that of the governments but they did leave the room for the change that the country thought it needed. i particularly liked the quptation from the film about how "people should not fear their governments but governments should fear its people." i think that this points out the fascist nature of the high chancellor and also would call people to question the world that is running their lives. Another thing that I noticed about the film is that Evey tended to be cast with some form of light shining on her where as the members of the party usually were cast in the shadows and darkness. I think that this gives the viewer not only the impression of one being oppressive and the other liberating but I think that fore the light on evey it also shows the means to changes. she was an instrument that V used to carry out his plan and change the nation. This film carried lots of diferent messages and I think the last one that I found to be most powerful was the way V tortured Evey and how he says that through that process he freed her of her fear. I don't know whether or not tha tis a good thing but i did see how he wanted her to becaom like him.

the Nation State.

I found Hitler's chapter on the nation state to be quite interesting and disturbing. He points out that the finch does not mate with a stork and sees that as a peice of evidence in nature for why the race should be kept pure. by his definition Race and species are the same thing. He beleives that mixing of races or ethnicities causes a medium between the two parents where the offspring will on the scale be higher than the lesser parent and lower than the more advanced parent. I find this to be absolutly ridiculous becuase there are numerous examples of cultures crossing and it beeing a good thing. I do not equate races with species and therefore i do not beleive that there should be such thing as a pure race. Additionaly, I do not agree with his assertment that htere is a superior race and that to maintain a functioning culture one must preserve the race that started it. He also mentiond that it is the duty of the superior or Aryan class to control and keep down other inferior classes. This idea of a superior needing to control in some way another group brought to mind Rudyard Kiplings article "the White Mans Burden" where Kipling beleives that it is the duty of the white man to assist lower classes while simutaneously creating situations that benefit him as well. This concep of a superior class and the need for them to reamin pure is not s good wone and ultimately can lead to more problems within that race. I feel like I have heard of certain religious groups that do not allow mixed marriages and as a result have had many people who are too closely related marriing and procreating creating more biological problems in there offspring than seen in cultures that allow mixed marriage. So overall I feel that Hitlers ideas of equating race with species are misguided at best and would lead a race to greater devastation than prosperity.

anarchism

For the most part I found this article to be intersting because it contradicted my previous deas of what anarchism was. I thought that it was a sort of chaos in the absence of government. I have come to learn that although anarchists do not beleive in government it is not for the purpose of chaos but for the social harmony of the community and also for a community that lives without force and violence. In theory I think that it is a good goal however I am unsure as to how fesible it would be for there to be a world where everyone could coexist harmoniously while still living on their own individual terms. Anarchism it seems like liberalialism values the freedoms of the individual. However it seems to value the individual before the community and hold the beleif that with satisfied individuals who are not forced by any means to do anything will cause individuals to live as a harmonious community. I am just unsure as to how possible it would be for individuals and a community to always be fully satisfied without some force because of the nature of communities some form of comprimise is necessarry and as a result there are going to be people who want what they want and will do anything at the cost of others to get it which is a force that I feel anarchists are not fans of so for these reasons I don;t think that an anarchist society could every exist just because of the nature of the ideology itself.

Darker Shades of Red

I found the exhibit Darker Shades of Red to be quite interesting. I t reminded me a lot of the statue park in Budepest Hungary that is full of statues from the Soviet occupation befor the revolution. Specificaly I found it interesting how closley the small iron cast statue of Lenin looked to what remains of a similar statue of Stalin that used to be in Heros Square in budapestt and all that are left now are stalins's boots because during th erevolution the statue was knocked down. Overall I find all of the stuff to be quite conflicting because personally I think the inherent valuse of communism are a good thing. However in the execution of it the ideals get sidetracked and the goals are never reached. In the story Under a Cruel Star a story that follows a girl from czhecholslovakia throughout the soviet occupation and her experience as a member of a nation being occupied by different regimes and the turmoil that caused on their lives. One thing that I remember from the story was the power of the community and belonging th athtey felt at least at the beginning of the communist regime which causes me o beleiver that in some form it could be a powerful and prosperous society and beleif system. Overall I feel that the ideals of communism that value hard work and education are good and can also lead to good commerce. I understand that the capitlalist would argue that a society like this would not function because witht he equalization of wages there would be no incentive to pogress. It is with this point that I find things get sticky because I do beleive in the power of competition while at the same time beleive that the amount of money that a single person can accumulate should be limited with the remainder going back to the stat. Yet if the ideas of communty are actually beleived and upheld competition is not really needed because the idea of working for the community is enought.

The Communist Manifesto

I find it interesting that in the Communist Manifesto Marx is promoting the idea of a classless society while at the same time understaning the roles of the proletariat or the working class and the Bourgeois or the factory owners and people with capital. Given the innate differences in the class standing and opportunities of these two classes there is tension between them. the Bourgeois although a smaller group has the upper hand and can control what happens to the proletariat. However I find it interesting that within the "class" of the proletariat it is argued that they are a classless group of people because as Marx writes "...the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class...the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.". As for the Bourgeois as a class it takes away from the individuality of people because it is such a proponent of making everyinthing equal. Overall I think that Marx's arguments about class are interesting in the way that at times thisgs seem to be contradictory but if there were to be an execution a perfect communist society then these class antagonisms that he argues against might not nescesarrily exist but I don't know if that would ever be possible.

The Positive Woman

I found this article quite interesting. I thought hta tit was interesting that what they deem as a The Positive Woman was more than just what is depicted by the areticle on how to be a good wife yet the concepts lined up. Howeve, i did think that it had good points. I am all for equal opportunity for women and fair representation but I do agree with their assesment that if the liberationist women were to have everything neutralized that it would be a disadvantage to society and to both women and men. I think that the innate differnces that Schlafty identified such as physical abilities and certain emotional and personality dispositions are good examples of why society could never and should never be truly gener neutral. I do find it interesting though that it seems that the woman's liberationist does not seem that they would beleive that a woman is or could possibly be content with the conventional role of a woman and they they would only think they are because they have been conditions by a sexist society to think that way.

Edmund Burke

In this reading Burke seems to percieve human intellect as the means ot a just society. he states that " the pride of human intellect ,which, with all its defects, redundancies and errors is the collected reason of errors. That in a sense if people are properly educated and in his sende that would include undestanding of jusrisprudence and common humanity that it would lead to reason and with reason the society would function better. He seems to suggest that through reason a rational way to solve and explain conflicts exists. However it sems that he feels that those that stand out in intelectual feilds would be overtaken by those who are less knowledgable.

Friedman

Overall i found Friedman's point that there can be many combinations of the different forms of economic ans political freedom. He points out that capitalism is necesarry for political freedom pointing out that there were Facist and tzarist regimes where that was not the case. As for his discussion on the "neighborhood effects" where as a result of monopolies some private businesses do not have a chance of surviving. He describes it as the "effecton third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recopense the (92)". He seems to be encountering a difficulty in a total free market while still providing everyone with equal oppotunity to have their own economic freedom. However, Friedman would not support the regulation of monopolies because he was for as little government interation as possible and beleived that if a country is economically free then it will be politically free.

I found the "Platform of the American anti-Imerialist League" really interesting. I liked how it brought up the poinst of how overtime places that were so far from each other are now closer. Additionally, the idea that the US regardless of oceans and rivers causing divide but now make the country connected. What I found most intersting was the reference to what Lincoln said of "'no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent... Thos who deny freedom from others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it.'" this quotation reminded me of Douglas's assertion that the idea of a liberal world breaks down if only some can enjoy that liberty. I found it really interesting because it also encompassed the idea that if those subjected to a rule have not submitted to it the rule will not last very long because for the society to function there must be mutual understanding of some of these rules. People must be able to have some say in there government because otherwise there will be a break down of order.

Mill

I found it interesting that Mill as apposed to Hobbes and Locke seemed to have a greater focus on the individual and the need for individual freedoms. I'm not sure but he seems to put a great sense of worth in the idea that people will act in with the thoughts of others and not soleley themselves if they are given these individual liberties. He names the individual as the sovereign. He seems to be critisizing the other forms of governece by stating "those who are still in a state to reqquire being taken care of by others, must be protected against thei own actions as well as against external injury.(79)" He recognizes that in those states that people not given personal liberties will be more compelled to act in their on self interest. On the other hand he seems to offer that a society that provides absolutly his three main liberties of thought and feeling, liberty to do what one likes, and lastly the liberty that as a combination of the individual libeties people have the right to come together for any pproductive purpose. I feel that I can most closely identify with Mills definition of a state because if this were as everyones rights respected and there does not seem to be one supreme or absolute rule.