As the West actively seeks to endorse and impose constitutions in countries around the globe, there lies a fundamental element of debate for application of a constitution in certain areas of the world. As the State Department notes, the biggest export of America is their constitution around the world; setting up free liberal democracies here and there while granting primitive tribal societies a sense of ‘universal rule of law.’ The African constitutional experience is far different than the European experience. Through my research however, I have concluded that African countries, although different from European countries, should still adopt some form of a constitution in order to 1) establish a framework for development and progress, through the rule of law, internally and externally, 2) improve the well-being of the state, and 3) appeal to the global community.
One of the primary differences between European constitutions and African constitutions, opponents of adopting constitutions in Africa argue, is that the consent of the people or the pull of ethnicity is far greater in Africa than it is in Europe. While this may have some truth to it, the argument about this being a main reason for not adopting a constitution is faulty. The fact of the matter is that the US is the most diverse country, culturally and religiously, yet our Constitution remains in tact. The initial stages of implementation are difficult, yes, and blood may be spilled, but for the long haul the co-existence of a diverse population and a constitution is very practical indeed. The Europeans underwent an easier time adopting it, since they are all usually of one nationality, but this fact alone should not impede African countries from establishing one for itself.
Opponents of my theory also argue that when constitutions are imposed, patrimonialism, which is essentially authoritarianism, exists in the African hierarchy and the rule of law is lost. But what can we say about this absence of the rule of law? Could it be a fracture on the actual constitutional-making process? If the state created an institution which provided checks and balances with a strong independent judiciary, the executive branch could not abuse his power. The framework thus created, enables these countries to develop a sense of national unity and national strength which is facilitated by grossing a GDP and accepting globalization as a form of enlightenment and necessity. The abuse of power can be curbed by reforming the process to a different way than the Europeans; perhaps a more gradual process. Internally they succeed and externally they can open trade with other nations as well.
What of the notion that constitutions contribute to the well-being of the state? Author Yash Ghai states "…neither the substance nor the ideology of the rule of law is necessary to governments and their economic systems in Africa…" Yet more often than not, we find that the countries with unrestricted trade and constitutional governments enjoy higher economic standards of living. This is to say that most of the European countries that parted from communism enjoy great economic success because of the established supreme law of the land. Without this symbolic and literal document, the country is always up for a power struggle and the well-being of the state is decreased. In other words, Ghai fails to mention that without an economic system or rule of law, that sheer anarchy and absolute freedom will ensue, thus giving rise to violence, subjugation, and ultimately self-destruction.
Although opponents make an interesting case for Africa’s self-reliant status apart from the rise of constitutionalism, they fundamentally fail to understand that in a growing, more interconnected world, it’s essential to have an economic system and a political ideology driving the formation of a country. Without a constitution, the well-being of the state, the internal and external structure, and the global community will all be neglected with severe consequences in return.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Constitutionalism Part II: Global Constitutionalism Erodes Sovereignty
Global constitutionalism is the belief that world governments will defer to the rules and principles enshrined in a worldly constitution and uphold the rule of law within that constitution. Throughout history, constitutionalism has changed in its meaning, authority, and its function of legitimacy. The three different waves of the constitutional process are significantly different than the recent wave of a global constitutional structure, or a New World Order. This new phase is undoubtedly more dangerous and more complicated than the previous phases before it.
The first wave of constitutionalism occurred from the 1700s up until the 1850s. This was the stage which established constitutions as a force and product of a law abiding society. Virtually all of these constitutions were established after a bloody revolution breaking away from a monarchy. Examples range from the United States in 1776 to France which had about 5 revolutions from 1793 to 1848. These constitutions were based upon limited government authority, religious freedom, and were products of the Enlightenment. The global constitutionalism setting is probably most similar to this stage. If in fact there were to be an adopted global constitution, it must remain from being too long and should be pithy; precisely what constitutions during this time frame were based upon. Also, global constitutionalism is brought forth because of the sense of distrust in nation-state actors; much like the constitutions in this era had distrust in government.
The second wave of constitutionalism was between the years of the end of WWII till the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. This stage was focused on nation-states becoming self-determining. From Japan and Germany after WWII to Spain and Portugal in the 1970s this stage focused on political rights and conceptual structures such as popular sovereignty. Global constitutionalism was making a rise in this era as well, with the formation of the UN, the establishment of NATO, and the creation of GATT (present day WTO). These institutions further developed the global states as one uniform body embracing subtle rules of law across the globe. The peril of this global constitutionalism was slowly eroding some sovereignty from many countries participating in this process.
The third wave of constitutionalism occurred after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. A rise of independent, free of USSR controlled states like Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Romania surfaced in this era, and constitutions were created to ensure freedom for all citizens. The iron grip of the Soviet bloc was destroyed and globally the US was left standing in a great position as the world’s number sole global superpower. These ex-communist countries wanted socio-economic rights in their constitutions, something which global constitutionalism will take no part in.
The formulation of a global constitution is extremely dangerous. Not only will the sovereignty be tarnished in each country, but the philosophical aspect of utopia is simply unattainable. How can a world, which embraces and sustains millions of different ideologies, embrace a structure that impedes freedom and culture in the very aspect it is hoping to achieve? Unfortunately, this is the next phase in constitutionalism; a phase that potentially, could leave a stigma on many freedoms we love and are guaranteed on Earth.
The first wave of constitutionalism occurred from the 1700s up until the 1850s. This was the stage which established constitutions as a force and product of a law abiding society. Virtually all of these constitutions were established after a bloody revolution breaking away from a monarchy. Examples range from the United States in 1776 to France which had about 5 revolutions from 1793 to 1848. These constitutions were based upon limited government authority, religious freedom, and were products of the Enlightenment. The global constitutionalism setting is probably most similar to this stage. If in fact there were to be an adopted global constitution, it must remain from being too long and should be pithy; precisely what constitutions during this time frame were based upon. Also, global constitutionalism is brought forth because of the sense of distrust in nation-state actors; much like the constitutions in this era had distrust in government.
The second wave of constitutionalism was between the years of the end of WWII till the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. This stage was focused on nation-states becoming self-determining. From Japan and Germany after WWII to Spain and Portugal in the 1970s this stage focused on political rights and conceptual structures such as popular sovereignty. Global constitutionalism was making a rise in this era as well, with the formation of the UN, the establishment of NATO, and the creation of GATT (present day WTO). These institutions further developed the global states as one uniform body embracing subtle rules of law across the globe. The peril of this global constitutionalism was slowly eroding some sovereignty from many countries participating in this process.
The third wave of constitutionalism occurred after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. A rise of independent, free of USSR controlled states like Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Romania surfaced in this era, and constitutions were created to ensure freedom for all citizens. The iron grip of the Soviet bloc was destroyed and globally the US was left standing in a great position as the world’s number sole global superpower. These ex-communist countries wanted socio-economic rights in their constitutions, something which global constitutionalism will take no part in.
The formulation of a global constitution is extremely dangerous. Not only will the sovereignty be tarnished in each country, but the philosophical aspect of utopia is simply unattainable. How can a world, which embraces and sustains millions of different ideologies, embrace a structure that impedes freedom and culture in the very aspect it is hoping to achieve? Unfortunately, this is the next phase in constitutionalism; a phase that potentially, could leave a stigma on many freedoms we love and are guaranteed on Earth.
Constitutionalism Part I: The Progression of Constitutionalism
What is constitutionalism? The broad answer of that question is merely the limitation of government by law. Yet the main tenets of constitutionalism are very different in each of the sovereign countries which instituted a constitution in the different historic constitutional periods. The tenets of constitutionalism are essential for defining a national sense of unity and adopting principles which are to guide that country for a sustainable period of time. Constitutionalism is absolutely an ideology which has been modified and tweaked for centuries, and is even entering a new phase of a theoretical configuration amongst the global community.
The initial ideology of what a constitution consisted of was influenced heavily by European philosophers like Locke and Montesquieu. The founding fathers of America based the tents of constitutionalism in our Preamble: “to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for a common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These tenets were a reaction to the breaking away of a British monarchy and the establishment of an independent state. The ideology of constitutionalism in this era was nothing more than granting liberties and protecting property rights. It had a very limited sense of government intervention.
Through time however, as mankind progresses and develops more knowledge, the tenets of constitutionalism vastly changed by the mid 20th century. The beginning of the second stage came with the defeat of Japan and Germany in WWII. The Japanese constitution was ratified within days by an imposed General MacArthur. The basic tenets of their constitution were trust within the government and the formation of a liberal parliamentary democracy. An excerpt from the Japanese constitution shows the trust in authority, “government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.” The ideology of government being beneficial was leaking even into our country at this time as well, with the passage of legislation which granted a vast amount of money to welfare and government job programs (New Deal). The ideology of constitution was no longer a distrust in government and protection of property rights. It was now blossoming into something beyond that, which political rights and universal suffrage played a big part in.
After the fall of communism, constitutions were bringing the government into many everyday aspects of their lives, because of the ‘status quo’ and how many citizens enjoyed free health care and education under communist rule. The constitution-making process involved a lot more details then did previous transitions of constitutionalism before that. The ideology had once again shifted. No longer did the political rights and univeral suffrage suffice, now governments, like Romania’s and Hungary’s, were to be controlling much of the economy. It was a constitution with a foundation upon socialist principles.
The transformation of constitutionalism in a historical context is quite stunning. As man pushed further into progress and development, the initial ideology of constitutions became somewhat obsolete, although it is worth noting that the root of constitutionalism still lies within that initial stage. As the ideology develops, we can infer that the tenets of constitutionalism will only seek to become modified in the future. This tranformation may soon be implemented within the global construct, endangering every transitional ideology before it.
The initial ideology of what a constitution consisted of was influenced heavily by European philosophers like Locke and Montesquieu. The founding fathers of America based the tents of constitutionalism in our Preamble: “to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for a common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These tenets were a reaction to the breaking away of a British monarchy and the establishment of an independent state. The ideology of constitutionalism in this era was nothing more than granting liberties and protecting property rights. It had a very limited sense of government intervention.
Through time however, as mankind progresses and develops more knowledge, the tenets of constitutionalism vastly changed by the mid 20th century. The beginning of the second stage came with the defeat of Japan and Germany in WWII. The Japanese constitution was ratified within days by an imposed General MacArthur. The basic tenets of their constitution were trust within the government and the formation of a liberal parliamentary democracy. An excerpt from the Japanese constitution shows the trust in authority, “government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.” The ideology of government being beneficial was leaking even into our country at this time as well, with the passage of legislation which granted a vast amount of money to welfare and government job programs (New Deal). The ideology of constitution was no longer a distrust in government and protection of property rights. It was now blossoming into something beyond that, which political rights and universal suffrage played a big part in.
After the fall of communism, constitutions were bringing the government into many everyday aspects of their lives, because of the ‘status quo’ and how many citizens enjoyed free health care and education under communist rule. The constitution-making process involved a lot more details then did previous transitions of constitutionalism before that. The ideology had once again shifted. No longer did the political rights and univeral suffrage suffice, now governments, like Romania’s and Hungary’s, were to be controlling much of the economy. It was a constitution with a foundation upon socialist principles.
The transformation of constitutionalism in a historical context is quite stunning. As man pushed further into progress and development, the initial ideology of constitutions became somewhat obsolete, although it is worth noting that the root of constitutionalism still lies within that initial stage. As the ideology develops, we can infer that the tenets of constitutionalism will only seek to become modified in the future. This tranformation may soon be implemented within the global construct, endangering every transitional ideology before it.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Cry Me A River Mohhamed
The recent indignation coming from the Muslim world is innately showing the global community how the Middle East population ultimately views their culture in the world; which is, unfortunately, a selfish, and inconsiderate, naïve view that is normatively silent in hate against humanity, except when it is placed upon them in the form of a cartoon. This ire is in lieu of the recent political cartoon published in a Danish newspaper, which essentially alleged that the Prophet Mohamed was a terrorist. It pictured him wearing a turban that had a lit fuse at the top of the garment.
All hell has now broken loose in the Middle East. From top Muslim clerics calling for beheadings, to militant groups sending out threats to citizens of Denmark and Norway, and to even masked gunmen raiding the European Union office in the Gaza City, the Muslim community has gone bonkers. After threatening the Danish and Norwegian citizens, one militant leader said, "We are calling on the citizens of the two countries to take this threat seriously because our cells are ready to implement this all over Gaza.”
Wow! They wish to implement terror; beheadings, destruction, chaos, and fear into the citizens of a country that had one newspaper’s political cartoonist satirically embrace the Prophet Mohamed as a terrorist. What can be said of this? Well now that the world is watching a lot of true revelations have come forth about the Muslim society.
First, this in fact proves how egotistical the leaders and the people in that region really are. Why do they spark huge protests and express complete discontent about a satirically driven cartoon published in a paper about their religious leader, when they never spark huge protests or express discontent of the terrorism that is going on around the world? Where was this incitement and zeal after 9/11 happened, or after the Madrid bombings, or after the London bombings? There was no outrage from the leaders or violent protests in the street calling for the beheadings of the terrorists. There was a dead, ominous silence coming from the Middle East that was ironically deafening. The fact that the Muslim world thinks anyone is going to give a damn how they react to a political cartoon, shows us that they are in desperate need of fulfilling their narcissistic aims at believing in their righteous superiority of “sensitivity” or “political correctness.” The deeper concern is that the Muslim world has no respect or regard for calling for the complete annihilation of Israel, or comparing Sharon to Hitler in Muslim newspapers. The double standard is rooted in ethnocentricity and a fundamental Islamic belief that the world would be better served without the nation of Israel. It’s uncanny that the Muslim community can become this upset over a cartoon but not over the massacre of innocent civilians in other countries or the other demoralizations of other religions coming from their very own region.
If there is any justification for persecution of ANY citizenship or religion, it would have had to come about after 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on their own soil on 9/11. Did anyone in the Bush administration actively say that we need to reprimand or take violent action against the Muslim community since it was carried out by them? No. In fact Bush flew some Muslims out of the country for their own safety, because of some radical morons who already were racist against Muslims before the attack even happened. No one was calling for violence to a citizen of Middle Eastern descent. And this was over the biggest terrorist attack in history where innocent people were actually murdered in large numbers. No one was physically hurt from this cartoon, but now the Muslim leaders wish to hurt people as a result of it being published.
Can you even imagine this scenario in reverse? Can you imagine what would happen if a major Muslim paper published the Pope in some terrible demeaning manner? Here’s what would happen. The Christian Right and the religious extremists would be up in arms about the insensitivity of the Muslim newspaper. They would advocate for a boycott and maybe speak out against the actual publication itself. But what if the Christian Right began to assail the Muslim community in general? What if high Catholic bishops called for the beheading of the people who did it, or called for militant groups to storm any Muslim related shop in the US and hold them up at gunpoint in protest of what some newspaper organization published? The liberals in this country would be on every talk radio and TV show denouncing these actions so frequently, that all the planned parenthoods, environmental protests, and welfare programs would shut down for a week. So where are the liberals condemning this reaction in the Middle East now?
The fact is this; the Muslim community must understand that if they want their fury to be respected, then they must be consistent in 1) condemning the terrorist attacks with just as much enthusiasm and 2) condemning the same ethnocentric treatment they harm the Jewish people with. Also, the freedom of speech must be protected even if it does offend people to the greatest extent. The selfishness within the Muslim population is overwhelming and the inconsideration they demonstrate around the world is scarily expectable.
All hell has now broken loose in the Middle East. From top Muslim clerics calling for beheadings, to militant groups sending out threats to citizens of Denmark and Norway, and to even masked gunmen raiding the European Union office in the Gaza City, the Muslim community has gone bonkers. After threatening the Danish and Norwegian citizens, one militant leader said, "We are calling on the citizens of the two countries to take this threat seriously because our cells are ready to implement this all over Gaza.”
Wow! They wish to implement terror; beheadings, destruction, chaos, and fear into the citizens of a country that had one newspaper’s political cartoonist satirically embrace the Prophet Mohamed as a terrorist. What can be said of this? Well now that the world is watching a lot of true revelations have come forth about the Muslim society.
First, this in fact proves how egotistical the leaders and the people in that region really are. Why do they spark huge protests and express complete discontent about a satirically driven cartoon published in a paper about their religious leader, when they never spark huge protests or express discontent of the terrorism that is going on around the world? Where was this incitement and zeal after 9/11 happened, or after the Madrid bombings, or after the London bombings? There was no outrage from the leaders or violent protests in the street calling for the beheadings of the terrorists. There was a dead, ominous silence coming from the Middle East that was ironically deafening. The fact that the Muslim world thinks anyone is going to give a damn how they react to a political cartoon, shows us that they are in desperate need of fulfilling their narcissistic aims at believing in their righteous superiority of “sensitivity” or “political correctness.” The deeper concern is that the Muslim world has no respect or regard for calling for the complete annihilation of Israel, or comparing Sharon to Hitler in Muslim newspapers. The double standard is rooted in ethnocentricity and a fundamental Islamic belief that the world would be better served without the nation of Israel. It’s uncanny that the Muslim community can become this upset over a cartoon but not over the massacre of innocent civilians in other countries or the other demoralizations of other religions coming from their very own region.
If there is any justification for persecution of ANY citizenship or religion, it would have had to come about after 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on their own soil on 9/11. Did anyone in the Bush administration actively say that we need to reprimand or take violent action against the Muslim community since it was carried out by them? No. In fact Bush flew some Muslims out of the country for their own safety, because of some radical morons who already were racist against Muslims before the attack even happened. No one was calling for violence to a citizen of Middle Eastern descent. And this was over the biggest terrorist attack in history where innocent people were actually murdered in large numbers. No one was physically hurt from this cartoon, but now the Muslim leaders wish to hurt people as a result of it being published.
Can you even imagine this scenario in reverse? Can you imagine what would happen if a major Muslim paper published the Pope in some terrible demeaning manner? Here’s what would happen. The Christian Right and the religious extremists would be up in arms about the insensitivity of the Muslim newspaper. They would advocate for a boycott and maybe speak out against the actual publication itself. But what if the Christian Right began to assail the Muslim community in general? What if high Catholic bishops called for the beheading of the people who did it, or called for militant groups to storm any Muslim related shop in the US and hold them up at gunpoint in protest of what some newspaper organization published? The liberals in this country would be on every talk radio and TV show denouncing these actions so frequently, that all the planned parenthoods, environmental protests, and welfare programs would shut down for a week. So where are the liberals condemning this reaction in the Middle East now?
The fact is this; the Muslim community must understand that if they want their fury to be respected, then they must be consistent in 1) condemning the terrorist attacks with just as much enthusiasm and 2) condemning the same ethnocentric treatment they harm the Jewish people with. Also, the freedom of speech must be protected even if it does offend people to the greatest extent. The selfishness within the Muslim population is overwhelming and the inconsideration they demonstrate around the world is scarily expectable.
Kant vs. Mill: A Philosophical Debate
The recent discussion amongst the death penalty poses a very deep psychological question amongst the essence and impetus of human nature. The debate can be categorized into two realms: the Kantian logic of categorical imperatives (a deontologist position) against a Millian logic of utilitarianism (a consequentionalist posititon).
Let's frame the abstract amongst both arguments first, and then one can find where they fit into these ethical normative practices.
The Kantian Logic
The deontologist position is somewhat a little more complicated than the consequentionalist position. Basically Kant believes in a theory of categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself. Kant bases his decision making on a universal maxim, something that does not qualify as an end in itself. The act itself MUST have moral content if it is carried out solely with regard to a sense of moral duty.
An example of Kantian ethics:
Imagine Nazi Germany for a moment. Imagine the Gustapo searching German quarters for violations against the proteting Jews, in a time when they were banished to concentration camps. Imagine the Gustapo coming to a house where Jews were living and questioned the Jews if they were in fact Jews or German citizens. Kant would argue that it is wrong to rob yourself of the moral DUTY of the universal maxim and pretend that you are in fact German. Basically, the result of the decision, by Kantian logic would be that these people are to be wisked away to concentration camps. But it is of no dilemma for Kant. You have maintained a sense of moral obligation to adhere to the categorical imperative of truth and reason. Kant concluded that the expected consequences of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation. The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the Good Will, expressed in recognition of MORAL duty.
The Millian Logic
The consequentionalist position is in fact very simple. It's maxim, under the doctrine of utilitarianism, is to achieve the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. To Mill, no matter how cruel of the actual act that is involved, no matter what extent of grotesque and dirty nature of the act, that as long as the end result is better for more people than the act is inherently justified. To Mill, the universal maxim was happiness. He believed the intrinsic moral value of life was for everyone to attain happiness and pleasure (there are different types of pleasures but thats for another discussion).
An example of Millian ethics:
In the same exact situation described above, Mill would have no problem lying to the Gustapo for a greater amount of happiness for humankind (i.e the Jews). It doesn't matter that they abondoned a sense of "moral duty", the bottom line to Mill is that they achieved what human nature should always be in search of: the greates amount of good for the greatest number of people.
By using this example, many people see that they would never adhere to Kantian logic; it seems ridiculous and in fact morally obtrusive itself. However let's take another example where one may completely agree with Kant, BASED on the same principles.
Imagine the entire city of Chicago has received word that the water system is completely diluted with a bacteria and soon a plague develops amongst the entire city...as it spreads through airborne. Now imagine if you will, for sake of the hypothetical point, that the government was able to contain Chicago in a large dome so to stop the spread of the immediate effects of the epidemic to other parts of the world. Yet, many people are talking about revolting against the government dome and roaming outside, because they are in fact not "infected" yet. Let's also pretend that the only way to stop the spread of the disease is to elminate all citizens in Chicago by means of smart missiles. The question then becomes...
Is it morally right to kill every citizen in Chicago for the benefit of the world? In Mill's eyes, yes, more happiness for the entire world is better than more suffering for the entire world. Hence, he would bmob Chicago so the world is "saved." Yet in Kant's eyes, the act itself is so repulsive that it goes against the moral duty and maxim of society to actually destroy massive amounts of human life to save more people. The ends to Kant are of no regard. It is the ACT in which is against his categorical imperatives.
Let's frame the abstract amongst both arguments first, and then one can find where they fit into these ethical normative practices.
The Kantian Logic
The deontologist position is somewhat a little more complicated than the consequentionalist position. Basically Kant believes in a theory of categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself. Kant bases his decision making on a universal maxim, something that does not qualify as an end in itself. The act itself MUST have moral content if it is carried out solely with regard to a sense of moral duty.
An example of Kantian ethics:
Imagine Nazi Germany for a moment. Imagine the Gustapo searching German quarters for violations against the proteting Jews, in a time when they were banished to concentration camps. Imagine the Gustapo coming to a house where Jews were living and questioned the Jews if they were in fact Jews or German citizens. Kant would argue that it is wrong to rob yourself of the moral DUTY of the universal maxim and pretend that you are in fact German. Basically, the result of the decision, by Kantian logic would be that these people are to be wisked away to concentration camps. But it is of no dilemma for Kant. You have maintained a sense of moral obligation to adhere to the categorical imperative of truth and reason. Kant concluded that the expected consequences of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation. The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the Good Will, expressed in recognition of MORAL duty.
The Millian Logic
The consequentionalist position is in fact very simple. It's maxim, under the doctrine of utilitarianism, is to achieve the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. To Mill, no matter how cruel of the actual act that is involved, no matter what extent of grotesque and dirty nature of the act, that as long as the end result is better for more people than the act is inherently justified. To Mill, the universal maxim was happiness. He believed the intrinsic moral value of life was for everyone to attain happiness and pleasure (there are different types of pleasures but thats for another discussion).
An example of Millian ethics:
In the same exact situation described above, Mill would have no problem lying to the Gustapo for a greater amount of happiness for humankind (i.e the Jews). It doesn't matter that they abondoned a sense of "moral duty", the bottom line to Mill is that they achieved what human nature should always be in search of: the greates amount of good for the greatest number of people.
By using this example, many people see that they would never adhere to Kantian logic; it seems ridiculous and in fact morally obtrusive itself. However let's take another example where one may completely agree with Kant, BASED on the same principles.
Imagine the entire city of Chicago has received word that the water system is completely diluted with a bacteria and soon a plague develops amongst the entire city...as it spreads through airborne. Now imagine if you will, for sake of the hypothetical point, that the government was able to contain Chicago in a large dome so to stop the spread of the immediate effects of the epidemic to other parts of the world. Yet, many people are talking about revolting against the government dome and roaming outside, because they are in fact not "infected" yet. Let's also pretend that the only way to stop the spread of the disease is to elminate all citizens in Chicago by means of smart missiles. The question then becomes...
Is it morally right to kill every citizen in Chicago for the benefit of the world? In Mill's eyes, yes, more happiness for the entire world is better than more suffering for the entire world. Hence, he would bmob Chicago so the world is "saved." Yet in Kant's eyes, the act itself is so repulsive that it goes against the moral duty and maxim of society to actually destroy massive amounts of human life to save more people. The ends to Kant are of no regard. It is the ACT in which is against his categorical imperatives.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Capital Punishment Protects Us All
As the outrage over Tookie William’s execution subsides, the rampant forty year old debate about the institution of the death penalty once again re-surfaces upon society. Since it’s redemption in 1977, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional, thirty eight states now have the death penalty as a form of punishment on the books. There is no question that having the death penalty available, and molding our republic around harsher punishment for murderers, undoubtedly protects us all.
One of the main arguments against the death penalty is that it is not a deterrent. However, this assertion has been found to be untrue time and time again. First, that statement is ripe with faulty logic. Dismissing the death penalty on that notion requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because jail time does not seem to be any kind of a deterrent from crime as well. Second, just because states have higher crime rates in places where the death penalty is practiced does not assume that it does not act as a deterrent. For example, states with heavy urbanized populations are far more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are predominantly rural. The states that have the high crime rates are compelled to have capital punishment, not the other way around. But wait, let’s bring some statistics in the mix to see if that second statement is even true. According to the JFA, Texas, the state which executes more murderers than any other state, had a murder rate of 15.3 percent in 1991. By 1999, the murder rate had dropped down to 6.1. If we observe some numbers about what happened after we abolished the death penalty in 1965 we find startling results. Between 1965 and 1980, when only two executions had taken place after it was re-implemented in 1977, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. What does this tell us? In conclusion it shows us that as the executions went down, the murder rate went way up. We can also look around the world to find evidence which may suggest capital punishment is a deterrent. If we examine South Africa, which does not have the death penalty, we notice that their murder rate is 6 times that of the United States!
Another common argument from the abolitionists is the claim that there are in fact alternatives to the death penalty, such as life without parole. They claim it’s more expensive to put someone to death, and that sometimes we will convict and execute innocent people. However, there are several key aspects lacking when one declares this to be true. This sentiment inherently ignores all of the inmates and guards who are often killed behind bars, from inmates who should most likely be on death row.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. One example was the James Moore case in New York. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled a young woman by the name of Pamela Moss. Her parents decided not to issue Moore the death penalty as long as he was sentenced to life without parole. Twenty years later, thanks to a change in the sentencing laws, Moore is eligible for parole every two years now.
The statistic on the death penalty being more expensive is also dead wrong. The death penalty costs roughly 2 million dollars for each execution. Yet the JFA estimates that life without parole may cost anywhere between 1.2 million-3.6 million per inmate. Also, it costs 50,000 a year per prisoner annually. If a prisoner lives for more than 40 years, then it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it surpasses the cost of an execution.
As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, one must understand that we live in an imperfect world, and nothing that is worth having comes without risk. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents that have been mistakenly executed this century. In fact there is no evidence that anyone has been executed that has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were innocent. Putting someone to death ensures they will never kill again. The death penalty is not the only institution which intrinsically has risks and dangers in exchange for social benefits. Adhering to the same logic, would we not have to get rid of cars, airplanes and electricity because those institutions have taken innocent lives as well? Of course not, but none of the proponents are advocating the abolishment of these institutions.
Historically, our founders obviously believed that the death penalty was clearly constitutional. How do I know this? Because when they wrote the Constitution, the death penalty was enforced yet they still included the eight amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). Obviously to them, execution did not fall into that category. To sum up the merits of the death penalty, here is an excerpt from Rousseau’s Social Contract in 1762: "Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the state."
One of the main arguments against the death penalty is that it is not a deterrent. However, this assertion has been found to be untrue time and time again. First, that statement is ripe with faulty logic. Dismissing the death penalty on that notion requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because jail time does not seem to be any kind of a deterrent from crime as well. Second, just because states have higher crime rates in places where the death penalty is practiced does not assume that it does not act as a deterrent. For example, states with heavy urbanized populations are far more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are predominantly rural. The states that have the high crime rates are compelled to have capital punishment, not the other way around. But wait, let’s bring some statistics in the mix to see if that second statement is even true. According to the JFA, Texas, the state which executes more murderers than any other state, had a murder rate of 15.3 percent in 1991. By 1999, the murder rate had dropped down to 6.1. If we observe some numbers about what happened after we abolished the death penalty in 1965 we find startling results. Between 1965 and 1980, when only two executions had taken place after it was re-implemented in 1977, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. What does this tell us? In conclusion it shows us that as the executions went down, the murder rate went way up. We can also look around the world to find evidence which may suggest capital punishment is a deterrent. If we examine South Africa, which does not have the death penalty, we notice that their murder rate is 6 times that of the United States!
Another common argument from the abolitionists is the claim that there are in fact alternatives to the death penalty, such as life without parole. They claim it’s more expensive to put someone to death, and that sometimes we will convict and execute innocent people. However, there are several key aspects lacking when one declares this to be true. This sentiment inherently ignores all of the inmates and guards who are often killed behind bars, from inmates who should most likely be on death row.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. One example was the James Moore case in New York. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled a young woman by the name of Pamela Moss. Her parents decided not to issue Moore the death penalty as long as he was sentenced to life without parole. Twenty years later, thanks to a change in the sentencing laws, Moore is eligible for parole every two years now.
The statistic on the death penalty being more expensive is also dead wrong. The death penalty costs roughly 2 million dollars for each execution. Yet the JFA estimates that life without parole may cost anywhere between 1.2 million-3.6 million per inmate. Also, it costs 50,000 a year per prisoner annually. If a prisoner lives for more than 40 years, then it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it surpasses the cost of an execution.
As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, one must understand that we live in an imperfect world, and nothing that is worth having comes without risk. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents that have been mistakenly executed this century. In fact there is no evidence that anyone has been executed that has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were innocent. Putting someone to death ensures they will never kill again. The death penalty is not the only institution which intrinsically has risks and dangers in exchange for social benefits. Adhering to the same logic, would we not have to get rid of cars, airplanes and electricity because those institutions have taken innocent lives as well? Of course not, but none of the proponents are advocating the abolishment of these institutions.
Historically, our founders obviously believed that the death penalty was clearly constitutional. How do I know this? Because when they wrote the Constitution, the death penalty was enforced yet they still included the eight amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). Obviously to them, execution did not fall into that category. To sum up the merits of the death penalty, here is an excerpt from Rousseau’s Social Contract in 1762: "Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the state."
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
DePaul Censors Free Speech by closing Affirmative Action Bake Sale
Well it seems as though the political correctness police at DePaul University have once again hammered away free speech and freedom of thought. The target of authoritarianism was none other then a simple protest against Affirmative Action, by means of a bake sale.
The basic theory behind this bake sale was to set prices which favor some races over others, just like what Affirmative Action advocates. It was a satirical protest to show the ridiculous nature of the policy when implemented in every day life. Students and administrators, by banning or opposing this bake sale, are paradoxically taking a situational stand as opposed to a principled stand on the inherent bias of this policy. Prices went as this:
White and Asian Males- 1.00
White and Asian Females- .75 cents
Black, Hispanic, and Native American Males- .50 cents
Black, Hispanic, and Native American Females- .25 cents
(This is the sign deemed "inappropriate" by McVarish)
The protest went on for roughly 1 hour and 30 mins before public safety came.We made somewhere in the range of 5 to 6 total dollars, as our aim was not to make money, but to foster debate about Affirmative Action on campus, and let the students know DePaul engages in such a discriminatory practice. Soon after the public safety came, the Dean of Students Greg McVarish, ended the civil and constitutionally protected protest. He walked up casually to the table and asked that we close up shop. Seeing as I am not in the profession of mind-reading I implored McVarish as to why we had to leave a peaceful protest in which we were merely engaging in debate with students of all races. He shot back in a pompous and consuming voice, 'Because I'm the Dean of Students.' That was his initial reason to close up the protest, because he has the authority to do so, even though our actions are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I again asked for a more sufficient reason and he then responded politely but sternly, 'Because your sign is inappropriate.' My sign was inappropriate? So now the Dean of Students can randomly use his authority to shut down peaceful protests with the mere subjectivity of his own reasoning? How can this be I asked? To point out the paradoxical nature of Mr. McVarish, I distinctly remember a stunt pulled by "The Students for Palestine" sometime last year. The setup of the presentation consisted of aligning fake dead bodies made of paper in the middle of the entire Student Center with bloody bullet holes in their head and body under the title of something like, ' Israeli Occupation Kills Palestinians." You would think McVarish would convene his moral authority to impede such ridiculous obscene graphics of "inappropriate" behavior, but McVarish was no where to be found. This protest was never shut down. This protest of Israeli occupation was never shut down, even though it clearly was "inappropriate." After the request from McVarish I got up peacefully and closed up shop with zero resistance and knew that this was merely one battle in the major war that will ensue against DePaul because of their limiting of free speech on campus.
Of course, the outrage and Stalinesque arm of DePaul is not satisfied with merely shutting down the bake sale and censoring free speech. As a matter of fact, three of us at the bake sale are now being investigated on “anti-discriminatory harassment” charges. Yes, that is correct. The one and only DePaul Student Affairs office is now rounding up me and two others to possibly seek further action for violating the Anti-Discriminatory Harassment Policy. The policy is ripe with ambiguity and stomps the discretionary free speech all students should have entitlement too. FIRE, an organization that promotes free speech on campus has now written a letter to DePaul on our behalf asking them to drop this petty investigation.
The sad fact of it all is that this is nothing new, nothing uncommon, nothing out of the ordinary for DePaul, a haven for liberal thought, to clamp down on the conservative students because they disagree with them. I think Greg Lukianoff put it best on a recent episode of a Fox News show called Hannity and Colmes, when he proclaimed loud and clear that “DePaul is a basket case.”
The basic theory behind this bake sale was to set prices which favor some races over others, just like what Affirmative Action advocates. It was a satirical protest to show the ridiculous nature of the policy when implemented in every day life. Students and administrators, by banning or opposing this bake sale, are paradoxically taking a situational stand as opposed to a principled stand on the inherent bias of this policy. Prices went as this:
White and Asian Males- 1.00
White and Asian Females- .75 cents
Black, Hispanic, and Native American Males- .50 cents
Black, Hispanic, and Native American Females- .25 cents
(This is the sign deemed "inappropriate" by McVarish)
The protest went on for roughly 1 hour and 30 mins before public safety came.We made somewhere in the range of 5 to 6 total dollars, as our aim was not to make money, but to foster debate about Affirmative Action on campus, and let the students know DePaul engages in such a discriminatory practice. Soon after the public safety came, the Dean of Students Greg McVarish, ended the civil and constitutionally protected protest. He walked up casually to the table and asked that we close up shop. Seeing as I am not in the profession of mind-reading I implored McVarish as to why we had to leave a peaceful protest in which we were merely engaging in debate with students of all races. He shot back in a pompous and consuming voice, 'Because I'm the Dean of Students.' That was his initial reason to close up the protest, because he has the authority to do so, even though our actions are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I again asked for a more sufficient reason and he then responded politely but sternly, 'Because your sign is inappropriate.' My sign was inappropriate? So now the Dean of Students can randomly use his authority to shut down peaceful protests with the mere subjectivity of his own reasoning? How can this be I asked? To point out the paradoxical nature of Mr. McVarish, I distinctly remember a stunt pulled by "The Students for Palestine" sometime last year. The setup of the presentation consisted of aligning fake dead bodies made of paper in the middle of the entire Student Center with bloody bullet holes in their head and body under the title of something like, ' Israeli Occupation Kills Palestinians." You would think McVarish would convene his moral authority to impede such ridiculous obscene graphics of "inappropriate" behavior, but McVarish was no where to be found. This protest was never shut down. This protest of Israeli occupation was never shut down, even though it clearly was "inappropriate." After the request from McVarish I got up peacefully and closed up shop with zero resistance and knew that this was merely one battle in the major war that will ensue against DePaul because of their limiting of free speech on campus.
Of course, the outrage and Stalinesque arm of DePaul is not satisfied with merely shutting down the bake sale and censoring free speech. As a matter of fact, three of us at the bake sale are now being investigated on “anti-discriminatory harassment” charges. Yes, that is correct. The one and only DePaul Student Affairs office is now rounding up me and two others to possibly seek further action for violating the Anti-Discriminatory Harassment Policy. The policy is ripe with ambiguity and stomps the discretionary free speech all students should have entitlement too. FIRE, an organization that promotes free speech on campus has now written a letter to DePaul on our behalf asking them to drop this petty investigation.
The sad fact of it all is that this is nothing new, nothing uncommon, nothing out of the ordinary for DePaul, a haven for liberal thought, to clamp down on the conservative students because they disagree with them. I think Greg Lukianoff put it best on a recent episode of a Fox News show called Hannity and Colmes, when he proclaimed loud and clear that “DePaul is a basket case.”
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The Blessings of Free Trade
What is free trade? The Left has adequately defined free trade as something evil, or something that is not natural and should be avoided at all costs. They frame the debate against free trade by citing numerous unfounded case studies and examples of how free trade hurts job growth, abuses child labor laws, denigrates the environment, or damages many Third World countries economies. This is not free trade. These simple talking points appeal to many uninformed people who simply avoid dissecting each of these criticisms and find the evidence behind each claim lacking in every angle of their argument. Free trade is the exchange of goods and services from one country to another without any restrictions. In theory, free trade not only benefits the individual, but it also benefits the world.
To further understand why a liberalized market is essential for sustainable economic growth let’s examine a standard model of what happens in a free trading environment. Let’s use the steel industry as our prime example. Raising tariffs against imported steel from foreign manufacturers will inflict immense damage to the US economy. These tariffs, or taxes, prevent the foreign steel producers from selling the steel to American companies and consumers at a cheaper price than what the domestic steel industry is selling at.
So you may ask yourself, ‘what exactly would be the purpose of these tariffs?’ The protectionist policy of the Left has advocated and cited that the American steel industry will lose thousands of jobs if we eliminate tariffs and allow cheaper foreign steel to be sold to the American consumers. Even though this claim may have some truth to it, the belief that only steel companies drive the economy is flat out deceitful. In 1998, after the elimination of the steel tariffs, only 10,000 jobs had been lost in the domestic steel industry. This number was relatively small compared to the 2.5 million jobs created in 1998, which included an increase in jobs in sectors where companies purchased steel at cheaper prices. The cheaper steel prices enabled car companies, like Ford, and military contractors, like Boeing, to higher more employees. Competition coerces these companies to compete for consumer business, which consequently lowers the steel prices, invokes more innovation, and improves the quality of the steel industry.
A general myth many liberals continue to shriek is the belief that free trade causes more child labor. However, a recent study done by Dartmouth economists Eric Edmonds and Nina Pavcnik conclude that free trade has in fact decreased the need for child labor. The study examined Vietnam, a country that liberalized their market in the 1990s. Vietnam increased exports throughout the 1990s which eventually lead to an increase in wealth in the economy. Thus poor families that see an increase in their income do not need to rely on the labor of their own children for additional income. The analysis of the study found that “real income growth among Vietnamese farming families between 1993 and 1998 can account for nearly one-half of the large decline in child labor in rural Vietnam that occurred over this period."
The basic philosophy of freedom also plays an important role in a free market. When one speaks of the components involved in free trade, many people often forget that it doesn’t just involve countries. It involves individuals living within those countries. To put a restriction on someone from selling goods in a land where they didn’t manufacture the product or grow the commodity strips man away from the primordial aspects of survival. Besides the fact that it’s the “law,” what grounds does someone have to disable or restrict one to sell goods and services in a foreign land? The answer is that nobody on Earth has or should have the authority to dictate such a disastrous trading policy.
The verdict on free trade is already in. NAFTA has been a complete success through the last 11 years and with the recent signing of CAFTA, it seems that more countries are beginning to realize the benefits of a liberalized market. Countries that lower barriers for trade enjoy higher economic standards of living. Next time you hear someone blasting the institutions of free trade, ask them if they enjoy cheaper prices of rice, steel, corn, or bananas. America needs to accept free trade and continue its path to more freedom for the world markets. With fewer barriers for trade, countries will become interconnected with one another. The more interconnected countries become the more free and prosperous the world will grow.
To further understand why a liberalized market is essential for sustainable economic growth let’s examine a standard model of what happens in a free trading environment. Let’s use the steel industry as our prime example. Raising tariffs against imported steel from foreign manufacturers will inflict immense damage to the US economy. These tariffs, or taxes, prevent the foreign steel producers from selling the steel to American companies and consumers at a cheaper price than what the domestic steel industry is selling at.
So you may ask yourself, ‘what exactly would be the purpose of these tariffs?’ The protectionist policy of the Left has advocated and cited that the American steel industry will lose thousands of jobs if we eliminate tariffs and allow cheaper foreign steel to be sold to the American consumers. Even though this claim may have some truth to it, the belief that only steel companies drive the economy is flat out deceitful. In 1998, after the elimination of the steel tariffs, only 10,000 jobs had been lost in the domestic steel industry. This number was relatively small compared to the 2.5 million jobs created in 1998, which included an increase in jobs in sectors where companies purchased steel at cheaper prices. The cheaper steel prices enabled car companies, like Ford, and military contractors, like Boeing, to higher more employees. Competition coerces these companies to compete for consumer business, which consequently lowers the steel prices, invokes more innovation, and improves the quality of the steel industry.
A general myth many liberals continue to shriek is the belief that free trade causes more child labor. However, a recent study done by Dartmouth economists Eric Edmonds and Nina Pavcnik conclude that free trade has in fact decreased the need for child labor. The study examined Vietnam, a country that liberalized their market in the 1990s. Vietnam increased exports throughout the 1990s which eventually lead to an increase in wealth in the economy. Thus poor families that see an increase in their income do not need to rely on the labor of their own children for additional income. The analysis of the study found that “real income growth among Vietnamese farming families between 1993 and 1998 can account for nearly one-half of the large decline in child labor in rural Vietnam that occurred over this period."
The basic philosophy of freedom also plays an important role in a free market. When one speaks of the components involved in free trade, many people often forget that it doesn’t just involve countries. It involves individuals living within those countries. To put a restriction on someone from selling goods in a land where they didn’t manufacture the product or grow the commodity strips man away from the primordial aspects of survival. Besides the fact that it’s the “law,” what grounds does someone have to disable or restrict one to sell goods and services in a foreign land? The answer is that nobody on Earth has or should have the authority to dictate such a disastrous trading policy.
The verdict on free trade is already in. NAFTA has been a complete success through the last 11 years and with the recent signing of CAFTA, it seems that more countries are beginning to realize the benefits of a liberalized market. Countries that lower barriers for trade enjoy higher economic standards of living. Next time you hear someone blasting the institutions of free trade, ask them if they enjoy cheaper prices of rice, steel, corn, or bananas. America needs to accept free trade and continue its path to more freedom for the world markets. With fewer barriers for trade, countries will become interconnected with one another. The more interconnected countries become the more free and prosperous the world will grow.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
The Art of Freedom
"The positive nature of people can be reduced to nothing less than what man could achieve. Through the deep, gloomy stages of humanity, we have embraced a concept which precedes all form of rational and irrational paths to reason and empiricism. What can be done about the growing fear of an eternity without freedom?
As the doctrines flow through our ages, and the philosophical conquests of virtue seem fit to desire, the world sits back and scoffs at ones who seek greatness. The beings of leverage are prominent to mask all of what man has, and what can be attributed to man. This ideal positive nature seems fit to only bargain with some self-worth or some self dignity which can be transformed into the spirit of freedom. Without desperation we find we are lost and our own worth is defeated as we continue to reform the abstract possibilities into the most envied sentiment which has graced this planet. How can we acknowledge man if we cannot acknowledge freedom? Does the infinite possibilities of imagination subdue our inherent drive and recognition of how we live freely amongst one another? If there is hope and there is a pursuant path to travel upon a dangerous journey, then it shall and should be done in the name of the ideals which we hold so close to ourselves and which demonize others with jealousy and hurt. What is a world to live without a world to live within freely?"
-CaptainAmerica
As the doctrines flow through our ages, and the philosophical conquests of virtue seem fit to desire, the world sits back and scoffs at ones who seek greatness. The beings of leverage are prominent to mask all of what man has, and what can be attributed to man. This ideal positive nature seems fit to only bargain with some self-worth or some self dignity which can be transformed into the spirit of freedom. Without desperation we find we are lost and our own worth is defeated as we continue to reform the abstract possibilities into the most envied sentiment which has graced this planet. How can we acknowledge man if we cannot acknowledge freedom? Does the infinite possibilities of imagination subdue our inherent drive and recognition of how we live freely amongst one another? If there is hope and there is a pursuant path to travel upon a dangerous journey, then it shall and should be done in the name of the ideals which we hold so close to ourselves and which demonize others with jealousy and hurt. What is a world to live without a world to live within freely?"
-CaptainAmerica
Liberals Continue To Fight For Discrimination
It is rather astonishing that 41 years after Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was to “prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs,” that liberals still insist on the government discriminating against certain American citizens. This discrimination is in the form of a federally assisted program, called Affirmative Action, which enables high school students to be admitted into college ahead of other students simply because of their race. Affirmative Action is not only unconstitutional, but it is also harmful to the ideal society founded upon hard work which America prides itself on. The philosophical idea that race or ethnicity can be the determining factor over your credentials is not only absurd but also flat out discriminatory.
The major reason why Affirmative Action (AA) is wrong is because it goes against everything and anything blacks fought for in the 1960s. It is a system based upon letting kids into college because of the color of their skin. At its core, AA is reverse discrimination. The justification of this reverse discrimination is that we need to be lenient on blacks because of their past, because of their history of slavery and segregation. Yet, if we look at blacks in college today, we find that 99.9% of them were born after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To say that the historical nature of segregation and slavery is cause for discriminating against whites today is unfounded simply because no black in college has been segregated from schooling, or has felt the shackles of slavery.
If we look beyond the obvious discrimination of the policy, we see many other fallacies with this plan. If AA was working, would we not see a greater movement of “institutionalized” blacks from the ghettos and into colleges? Also, this policy implies we should see less conflict between blacks and whites, yet many studies show that this is not the case. Whites have only become increasingly negative about this evident discriminatory policy and it has amplified tensions between the two races, producing exactly the opposite of what the policy proponents of this plan have sought to achieve. It has created more ethnocentricity, and less acceptance and dialogue between races and ethnicities. This is not what society should be advocating.
Another major problem with AA is what it does to those who are benefiting towards the policy. Affirmative Action places a stigma on the race in which it is assisting. For example, blacks or Hispanics at Ivy League schools are sometimes looked upon, unrightfully so, as “second tier” students to most of their colleagues. The reason is because the perception of many whites is that blacks or Hispanics are only at the school because of AA and therefore are not as worthy as the rest of their colleagues. This is a major drawback from what AA is hoping to achieve. Although the belief that someone is inferior because of their race is wrong, and most people should never feel or think that way, it happens because of this program. But why shouldn’t the belief come about from students and others, the people backing this policy are obviously believing that blacks and Hispanics cannot get accepted into college without a racially preferred program like Affirmative Action. It is my assertion that the believers in this policy actively seek to uphold the inferiority gap in which many blacks, through history, have kept in the back of their minds. This gap needs to be broken, and AA only obstructs the process of it being destroyed.
The last reason on why AA is inherently wrong is because of its actual policy. Was America not founded upon the principle of individualism and self-autonomy? The mere fact that I will get turned down from a college of my choice because of race and not actual credentials is downright cruel and unusual punishment. It once again is unconstitutional. The fact that this policy implies the admissions officer for every college is racist is also flat out ignorant. Our society is based upon the belief that hard work will pay off, and since this policy actively seeks to undermine this belief, then I believe motivation and innovation amongst students, will become damaged as well.
Supporting Affirmative Action is an indefensible argument. If you are in fact supporting AA, you are a discriminatory person. If you support AA you are implying that blacks and Hispanics are inferior to whites. If you support AA, you are increasing racial tensions in society. If you support AA you are placing a stigma on blacks and Hispanics. If you support AA you are destroying the fabric of individualism and the belief in merit. Last but not least, if you support AA, you are a hypocrite to the very nature of what America has voiced for the last 41 years.
The major reason why Affirmative Action (AA) is wrong is because it goes against everything and anything blacks fought for in the 1960s. It is a system based upon letting kids into college because of the color of their skin. At its core, AA is reverse discrimination. The justification of this reverse discrimination is that we need to be lenient on blacks because of their past, because of their history of slavery and segregation. Yet, if we look at blacks in college today, we find that 99.9% of them were born after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To say that the historical nature of segregation and slavery is cause for discriminating against whites today is unfounded simply because no black in college has been segregated from schooling, or has felt the shackles of slavery.
If we look beyond the obvious discrimination of the policy, we see many other fallacies with this plan. If AA was working, would we not see a greater movement of “institutionalized” blacks from the ghettos and into colleges? Also, this policy implies we should see less conflict between blacks and whites, yet many studies show that this is not the case. Whites have only become increasingly negative about this evident discriminatory policy and it has amplified tensions between the two races, producing exactly the opposite of what the policy proponents of this plan have sought to achieve. It has created more ethnocentricity, and less acceptance and dialogue between races and ethnicities. This is not what society should be advocating.
Another major problem with AA is what it does to those who are benefiting towards the policy. Affirmative Action places a stigma on the race in which it is assisting. For example, blacks or Hispanics at Ivy League schools are sometimes looked upon, unrightfully so, as “second tier” students to most of their colleagues. The reason is because the perception of many whites is that blacks or Hispanics are only at the school because of AA and therefore are not as worthy as the rest of their colleagues. This is a major drawback from what AA is hoping to achieve. Although the belief that someone is inferior because of their race is wrong, and most people should never feel or think that way, it happens because of this program. But why shouldn’t the belief come about from students and others, the people backing this policy are obviously believing that blacks and Hispanics cannot get accepted into college without a racially preferred program like Affirmative Action. It is my assertion that the believers in this policy actively seek to uphold the inferiority gap in which many blacks, through history, have kept in the back of their minds. This gap needs to be broken, and AA only obstructs the process of it being destroyed.
The last reason on why AA is inherently wrong is because of its actual policy. Was America not founded upon the principle of individualism and self-autonomy? The mere fact that I will get turned down from a college of my choice because of race and not actual credentials is downright cruel and unusual punishment. It once again is unconstitutional. The fact that this policy implies the admissions officer for every college is racist is also flat out ignorant. Our society is based upon the belief that hard work will pay off, and since this policy actively seeks to undermine this belief, then I believe motivation and innovation amongst students, will become damaged as well.
Supporting Affirmative Action is an indefensible argument. If you are in fact supporting AA, you are a discriminatory person. If you support AA you are implying that blacks and Hispanics are inferior to whites. If you support AA, you are increasing racial tensions in society. If you support AA you are placing a stigma on blacks and Hispanics. If you support AA you are destroying the fabric of individualism and the belief in merit. Last but not least, if you support AA, you are a hypocrite to the very nature of what America has voiced for the last 41 years.
Illegal Immigration Must Be Fixed
As of 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) has estimated that there were 8 million illegal immigrants living in America, a number which has been increasing half a million annually. One would think that this fact alone would compel our federal government to propose solutions and initiatives which would help secure our border more effectively. Unfortunately, our government has been failing us for several years in protecting our borders and in the process hurting the average American citizen. As the Democrats and Republicans argue over what will work, everyone should be clear on one main point: illegal immigration is a major problem, and needs to be fixed.
The National Research Council has calculated that illegal immigrants use approximately twenty-two billion dollars of the American taxpayer’s money a year. Although it is true that most illegal immigrants are not on welfare, they still waste government expenditures through means of education, incarceration, and medical care. The federal Bureau of Prison spent $5.8 billion on incarcerating illegals between 2001 and 2004. The worst part was that $5.8 billion was only 25% of the actual cost; the rest was shouldered by individual states. The expense of illegal immigrants is now on the shoulders of the average American citizen. To eradicate illegal immigration I believe the government should focus on three main areas: 1) to increase border security using the National Guard, 2) to garner international cooperation from Mexico, and 3) to enforce the law on illegal immigrants already inside our country by putting into practice a guest worker program.
There are a number of very important initiatives I believe we should discuss when implementing better policy on the border. First and foremost, we must recognize that we simply do not have enough border patrol agents on the borders to effectively catch all or even the majority of illegal immigrants. President Bush provided the southern border 210 additional border agents this year, despite the fact that Homeland Security was asking for 2,000 more agents. My solution is simple. If we are concerned at all about the safety of our country, and the economic dominance we sustain, then we should use the National Guard to secure the majority of the border. Recently, a congressional report has found that the deployment of 36,000 National Guard troops would "dramatically reduce if not virtually eliminate" illegal immigration. The government has the necessary tools to impede immigration with the US National Guard, yet no lawmaker has the will to engage such a hot button issue.
It also doesn’t help that the Mexican President, Vicente Fox, is calling for a modified version of an “open border.” This kind of international rhetoric is absurd. But what can one expect from someone who claimed that open borders were good because Mexicans “are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States." Fox doesn’t seem to care or realize that these illegal immigrants cost people like you and I money. Fox doesn’t seem to understand that an open border would be a haven for any potential terrorists to enter our country and destroy an entire American city. Yet, the slimiest of motivations may just be that Fox doesn’t want to deal with the extremely high poverty rate (over 40%) in his country. So, as Fox distorts how America benefits from illegal immigrants, he is concealing his true motivations. He doesn’t want to deal with the poor in his country, period. However, we need to get Fox to cooperate and understand why we should place National Guardsmen on the border. Without Fox on our side for these policies, the decline of immigration will not be as great as it could be.
While protecting the border and getting Fox to cooperate is vital for a secure border, we also must address the issue of what to do with all of the illegal immigrants already here in America. As much as I would love to wave a magic wand and deport the 8 or 9 million living here already, it’s simply not plausible. We don’t have the manpower or the money for that kind of an operation. So, my proposal would first create incentives to employers of any business to hire legal immigrants instead of illegal immigrants. There should also be harsher penalties if any employer decides to take on illegals to his payroll. Secondly, my proposal would implement a guest worker program, similar to Bush’s plan, which would allow illegals already inside the US to work for employers who need people for labor. Many of my conservative colleagues disagree with granting the illegal immigrants, who already broke the law, guest worker status in the US simply because it is unfair to the immigrants who legally tried to enter the country, and who are still waiting for citizenship. This position sounds like a good idea, but it lacks a pragmatic approach to address the illegals already in the country. Since we cannot deport them all, why not let them work and pay taxes to the American political system? After three taxpaying, hard-working years, the illegals should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship, granted they had no trouble with the law during their three year stay.
If these three points were executed on a federal level, not only will illegal immigration decline, but also government expenditures will decline, as they begin to pay taxes and pay for their own health care. The longer we wait and avoid enacting policies which could hinder illegal immigration, the bigger the problem will be in the future. If the Bush Administration does not protect the border then I believe the severity the problem could be catastrophic to our nation’s economy and to our national security.
The National Research Council has calculated that illegal immigrants use approximately twenty-two billion dollars of the American taxpayer’s money a year. Although it is true that most illegal immigrants are not on welfare, they still waste government expenditures through means of education, incarceration, and medical care. The federal Bureau of Prison spent $5.8 billion on incarcerating illegals between 2001 and 2004. The worst part was that $5.8 billion was only 25% of the actual cost; the rest was shouldered by individual states. The expense of illegal immigrants is now on the shoulders of the average American citizen. To eradicate illegal immigration I believe the government should focus on three main areas: 1) to increase border security using the National Guard, 2) to garner international cooperation from Mexico, and 3) to enforce the law on illegal immigrants already inside our country by putting into practice a guest worker program.
There are a number of very important initiatives I believe we should discuss when implementing better policy on the border. First and foremost, we must recognize that we simply do not have enough border patrol agents on the borders to effectively catch all or even the majority of illegal immigrants. President Bush provided the southern border 210 additional border agents this year, despite the fact that Homeland Security was asking for 2,000 more agents. My solution is simple. If we are concerned at all about the safety of our country, and the economic dominance we sustain, then we should use the National Guard to secure the majority of the border. Recently, a congressional report has found that the deployment of 36,000 National Guard troops would "dramatically reduce if not virtually eliminate" illegal immigration. The government has the necessary tools to impede immigration with the US National Guard, yet no lawmaker has the will to engage such a hot button issue.
It also doesn’t help that the Mexican President, Vicente Fox, is calling for a modified version of an “open border.” This kind of international rhetoric is absurd. But what can one expect from someone who claimed that open borders were good because Mexicans “are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States." Fox doesn’t seem to care or realize that these illegal immigrants cost people like you and I money. Fox doesn’t seem to understand that an open border would be a haven for any potential terrorists to enter our country and destroy an entire American city. Yet, the slimiest of motivations may just be that Fox doesn’t want to deal with the extremely high poverty rate (over 40%) in his country. So, as Fox distorts how America benefits from illegal immigrants, he is concealing his true motivations. He doesn’t want to deal with the poor in his country, period. However, we need to get Fox to cooperate and understand why we should place National Guardsmen on the border. Without Fox on our side for these policies, the decline of immigration will not be as great as it could be.
While protecting the border and getting Fox to cooperate is vital for a secure border, we also must address the issue of what to do with all of the illegal immigrants already here in America. As much as I would love to wave a magic wand and deport the 8 or 9 million living here already, it’s simply not plausible. We don’t have the manpower or the money for that kind of an operation. So, my proposal would first create incentives to employers of any business to hire legal immigrants instead of illegal immigrants. There should also be harsher penalties if any employer decides to take on illegals to his payroll. Secondly, my proposal would implement a guest worker program, similar to Bush’s plan, which would allow illegals already inside the US to work for employers who need people for labor. Many of my conservative colleagues disagree with granting the illegal immigrants, who already broke the law, guest worker status in the US simply because it is unfair to the immigrants who legally tried to enter the country, and who are still waiting for citizenship. This position sounds like a good idea, but it lacks a pragmatic approach to address the illegals already in the country. Since we cannot deport them all, why not let them work and pay taxes to the American political system? After three taxpaying, hard-working years, the illegals should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship, granted they had no trouble with the law during their three year stay.
If these three points were executed on a federal level, not only will illegal immigration decline, but also government expenditures will decline, as they begin to pay taxes and pay for their own health care. The longer we wait and avoid enacting policies which could hinder illegal immigration, the bigger the problem will be in the future. If the Bush Administration does not protect the border then I believe the severity the problem could be catastrophic to our nation’s economy and to our national security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
