TOPIC: The Social Contract
FOLLOWUP QUESTION: A problem with living in such a heterogenous society is that we all have such different values and perspectives, yet we are supposed to submit to the same Social Contract. We have laws and constitutional amendments to protect out rights, but sometimes they clash. Today, the first amendment protects us so much, but can also limit some rights. For example, a woman's right to choose might clash with religious freedom. Civil rights protections extends safeties to Gay Rights, but some members of the religious right claim it impedes their right to religious freedom if they are "forced" to politically acknowledge gay rights.
How do we resolve this in a society like ours? Which protections should take precedence??
The concept of the "social contact" is
one that was highly supported by many philosophes of the Enlightenment
era, especially America's Founding Fathers. It is loosely defined as the
implicit agreement between a government and its people. In this
agreement, citizens "give up" certain rights they are "born with" in
order to receive the stability of civil society and thus get to enjoy
the additional freedoms and privileges that come with living in a stable
state.
-How many and what type of rights should the
individual "give up" for the security of civil society? At what point does the concept of the "social contract" begin the
encroach upon your sense of individualism? Should we look at society as
one big team? Or every man/woman/child for himself? Apply this to education. Some philosophes and educational reforms believed that part of our social contract is giving up some of our property (money) to the government in exchange for public education. Is that fair and how far should that extend? What about Obama's new goal of making community college free?
-The concept best applies to our current debate on gun control. How
should this issue be addressed? How does the concept of the Social
Contact play into this?
-How
far should the ideals of the Enlightenment extend? Voltaire sure loved
freedom of speech, but are pure freedoms dangerous? How does that affect
our modern society with the advent of the internet? Should some groups
be limited in their use of free speech? Hate groups, creepy NAMBLA type
groups?
-Futher, with free speech, was it irresponsible of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo to continuously portray the prophet Muhammad?
You
are required to post and must directly engage another student. I am
grading based on quality and amount of interaction, so post away!
Remember to use the reply function when responses to specific
people/topics. Engage with your fellow AP Worlders and debate! Use as
much evidence from the readings and any other research to back your
claims!
GO!
REMEMBER: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! ANY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND PUNISHED.
ALSO: IF YOUR IDENTITY IS NOT COMPLETELY EVIDENT IN YOUR SCREEN NAME, YOU WON'T GET CREDIT!
ONE
LAST THING: Don't write essays nor address every questions in one post.
Spread it out and make your posts short enough that people will
actually read them and address them. Remember to use the reply function!
I will post addition questions throughout the weekend. Keep an eye out for that!
The social contract is an unspoken agreement that the citizens of a society will give up some of their rights in return for protection and overall stability among a society. I agree and support this concept as I feel that its purpose is to do nothing but good for a community and to ensure that a society is properly functioning at all times. For example, in today’s world we have given up the right to fight interrogations in order to be more protected. In airports, security has the ability to question or interrogate people who are acting suspiciously, and although for some people this may feel like discrimination, it increases our ability to be protected and feel safer. Overall, it is better that we have given up some of our rights as citizens in return for gaining certain privileges and keeping a more stable and balanced community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake in that the social contract is extremely important and must be present in order for a society to flourish. Democracy has to proven to be the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. For example, the Patriot Act was put into place in order to improve the interception and obstruction of terrorism. However, Americans had to give up some of their privacy rights due to the fact that the government now had the ability to view cellular messages along with other forms of communication. Similar to the "social contract" Americans had to give up certain rights that they were born with in order to ensure the stability of civil society. All in all, sacrificing some of these individual rights is required to maintain any balanced society.
DeleteI agree with both Jake and Matt in that the social contract is extremely important for a society to flourish. The social contract is intended for the good of people and to ensure their safety. As Matt said, the government records every phone call made and text message sent, which is taking away the American people’s privacy. Similar to this, emails are censored, along with web searches. In this case, I do not think that society is every man for himself because society is fighting against the same enemy in this situation, terrorism. In all, because everyone has given up a portion of their rights, the social contract works to protect citizens.
DeleteI completely agree with my main bro Jake. I also support the concept of the "Social Contract". The "Social Contract" is all about the bettering of society as a whole. While that may mean that certain rights may have to be altered or even at times taken away, like Jake's example of the undeniable security Czechs at airports, which are some times done simply because of one's appearance. Although, some many believe that individual rights are being squandered upon by society and the government, it is ultimately, for the best and it ensures that society is running safely and correctly.
DeleteI agree with everyone in that the social contract is an important aspect of society, even if at times the ideology can be intrusive. It's important that individuals in a society understand the importance of giving up certain rights as a way to ensure security and prosperity of our country. There is more to the development of a country than a strong economy and I agree with Dani that the people in society are one unit fighting against one common enemy, which is where most of the freedoms getting taken away, like privacy, stem from. Overall, the social contract is put in place so the welfare of the country and the lives of citizens are improved.
DeleteI want to talk about the point Matt brings up with the spying and NSA controversy. I completely agree that the people need to give up some rights in order to have law and protection in an ordered society. For instance, people give up some of their freedoms by giving taxes but that helps fund a military to protect the people. My problem with the NSA controversy is that, unlike taxing, people were generally unaware about the extent of the spying done on American people. I completely agree with the idea of a social contract, but I think the people should know exactly what rights they are giving up and why.
DeleteI agree with James. Freedoms need to be given up so that the freedoms of the group can be achieved. If an aspiring citizen wishes to give up natural freedoms for the promised freedoms of a government, the rights of the group should be made evident. I do not agree with the proposed NSA controversy since it violated the original pact which citizen and group made. It is unjust for a government to go against the people who trusted it.
DeleteI agree with Jake. If people did not give up their rights for some security, society would be much more anarchic due to the fact that there would be less restrictions on what they could do and less punishments on what would happen.
DeleteI agree with James to an extent. If the people were to know about it, I wonder how effective the NSA would be. Knowledge of the NSA's methods could prompt potential terrorists to adopt more secretive ways of organizing and attacking. But this raises a greater question: Even if the people have a right to know, should they know, or would that defeat the purpose? I believe in accountability, but not at the cost of effectiveness.
DeleteI have to disagree with the idea of the social contract. People are born with given rights and the government does not have the authority to strip away those rights for the means of protection. Although a founding father, Benjamin Franklin states that America is a constitutional republic in which the government is a representative of the people. This means the government is to listen to the people, not vice versa. I agree with Jame's point in which the NSA are invading people's privacy and in turn freedom, yet is society just to strip away rights for this "protection"? Laws are created to control actions that are deemed unjust for society, yet they do not require people to give up rights. Some limit rights, true, yet the social contract is unnecessary for stability within a society can be created without the removal of certain freedoms.
DeleteI disagree with Jake, for I believe that by giving up more rights we are essentially subduing our rights to the government. The government cannot control the people by taking away little rights at a time. I feel that the undercover on surveillance could be paralleled to the spies in Persia. Back then it was in order to maintain control, just as the government is attempting to do now. While I do feel they can ensure security, I do not think it is worth the deal of giving up our civil liberties, such as the right of privacy
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do agree with everything that already been stated, but on the topic of the NSA controversy I think that although the privacy of citizens is being taken away when it comes to personal calls and emails, the government wouldn't have issued such an intrusive act if it wasn't necessary. The government's job is to protect the people and I for one would rather have someone scan my email and the emails of all others looking for possible signs of danger, than have another terrorist attack, for example, when it could've been prevented. The NSA does invade privacy, but there would be a bigger price to pay if that didn't occur.
DeleteI agree with Jake and also believe that the Social Contract is very helpful for society. The Social Contract truly helps with keeping a society organized and safe. For example, the actions taken to protect against terrorism in the United States is a perfect example of the Social Contract. People have to give up some of their freedoms like private phone calls or emails in order to protect the people against terrorism. The government takes many actions to try to stop terrorism just like Jake talked about with interrogations. This exchange of some freedom for protection from terrorism is definitely a fair exchange. However, the government has to make sure that they do not cross the line and take away rights that shouldn't be taken away. Many people argue that having access alone to emails, phones, etc. is taking away too big of a freedom for citizens. Even though I think it is an acceptable way to keep the United States secure, the government has to be careful not to go too far and take away freedoms that shouldn't be taken away.
DeleteAddressing gun control, I don't oppose the concept of owning a firearm because it is a second ammendment right, but the arguements the NRA and many who strongly oppose gun control in any capactiy are often absolutely absurd. Many groups want to push for limited to restrictions to make owning a firearm as simple as possible. Current events show that the simplicity of obtaining a firearm can place weapons in the hands of people who are determined to inflict harm on as many people as possible. Nearly anyone, even those who have a history of mental illness, can aquire a gun. Either illegally or legally through a gun show or auction, people can get weapons with hardly and restriction. Also the NRA is in support of armor piercing rounds and fully automatic rifles. There is not a single scenario that could possibly require such destructive materials in the name of protection. Sacrificing certain freedoms in favor of security is the nature of the Social Contract, and those who oppose gun control are attempting to hold onto certain freedoms that sacrifice the security of everyone. It is not an individual agreement but one that includes the masses, and the decision to have such high capactity weapons just to take advantage of this outrageous freedom is reckless and irresponsible and can endanger everyone really.
ReplyDeleteThe ideals of enlightenment should certainly have a place in society, as challenging the authority of institutions that are deeply rooted in society is significant to all of its members. However, I believe that there should be a limit to how far these freedoms are extended due to the fact that they can cause larger problems within a society. For example, recently we saw the affects of the Charlie Hebdo incident in the news everywhere. Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly newspaper located in France was attacked by members of Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen after the publishing of images that mocked Muhammad and the religion of Islam. In modern society, the freedom of press allows companies like this specific one to publish whatever they want, challenging the authority of others. This can lead to problems with those who find it offensive. Therefore, I believe that freedom of press should be limited in some cases due to the destruction that it may cause. This is important now more than ever because of the internet capabilities that we have in modern society.
DeleteMatt Hand
I disagree with Matt in his belief that some groups should be restricted in their freedom of speech. Banning freedom of speech on some groups but not others is clearly immoral, and Americans believing in the banning of freedom of speech directly goes against the first amendment. Freedom of speech is a key element in society because if there are no disagreements in society, there can be no improvement. Although some people may be evil at nature, they are still human and deserve to be given basic human rights.
DeleteI agree with Hannah in that if one group of people are given the ability to speak freely, then all other groups should also be permitted. If a certain group was not allowed to speak freely or say what they believed in, then America would be contradicting one of its most important values: freedom. America does not choose which groups of people are allowed to have certain freedoms, but offer it to all different types of people in a society. Although realistically certain groups may not be saying things that are morally right or acceptable, it doesn’t mean that they should be restricted in what they believe in, while others can say whatever they want. If one group is given certain rights, it is only fair that any other human should be given those rights well.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with Hannah and Jake that peoples’ freedom of speech should not be limited. Freedom of speech has been a crucial element in developing the world into what it is today. If the ability to challenge the authority of others was revoked, despotism would be imminent. Though some comments may be labeled “offensive”, there is simply no way to make everyone happy and society has to learn this.
DeleteI agree with Hannah and Jake that freedom of speech should not be restricted in any form of society. This liberty allows humans across the world to bring forth controversial ideas or topics and flaws that are existent in society. If one cannot question their own government, then that society will not be able to flourish. For example, look at the current state of modern North Korea. The former USSR is also a great example. With that being said, i do believe that all humans need to exhibit this liberty with caution. The freedom of speech should only be used in an educated manner. As seen in the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the cartoonists went a little too far with the depictions of Muhammed and Islam. However, the immense amount of positive effects that the freedom of speech brings to all facets of society makes it a freedom that cannot be restricted in any capacity.
DeleteI agree with Hannah that freedom of speech should not be limited. Freedom of speech allows people in a society to have his/her own opinion. If this right was restricted, people would be fearful of sharing their opinions. For instance, if freedom of speech had been restricted during the Civil Rights Movement, discrimination of African Americans could still be very present in society. I’m not saying that discrimination is 100% gone, but with the freedom of speech, Americans were able to have their own opinions of the Civil Rights Movement. One huge advocate for this was Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke freely about what he believed in, which caused people to create their own opinions of what was occurring. Another reason why freedom of speech should not be limited is because it impacts many others rights. It may start to impact people’s right to vote because they would be afraid to voice their opinions. Therefore, freedom of speech is a right that should not be restricted.
DeleteI agree with everyone above who has said that freedom of speech should not be limited. Freedom of speech is an important part of a democracy. However, there is a danger in allowing the people to freely speak their minds. People can misinterpret information or publish whatever they would like on the Internet. Charlie Hebdo was rightfully allowed to publish the prophet Muhammad, but the magazine should have thought through their actions. All actions lead to a result, sometimes they are beneficial and sometimes they are hazardous. If people want to speak freely, they must realize their words have repercussions that could cause terrible events, such as the eleven people who were killed and another eleven who were injured in Paris. Freedom of speech is not necessarily an inherent right, so when freedom of speech is granted to the people, it cannot be abused.
DeleteI agree with Jake and Hannah that all people in our society are entitled to express their beliefs. One of the main reasons why America is so valuable is the immense amount of freedom people are granted. If the government one day decided to restrict these rights to a selected group of people, it would make our nation appear very hypocritical. On the other hand, I also partially agree with Matt and believe that this freedom can be commonly abused and create problems within our society. I believe that people should be able to attain this freedom no matter what their background is, but those who abuse it need should be disciplined in some manner. I think that everyone should be allowed to say what he or she believes in unless it is specifically intended to harm a specific person or group. When this happens, the person’s freedom should be slightly lessened until he or she can prove to be responsible with it. Overall, I believe that while this freedom is required for people to be satisfied and for a community to prosper, freedom is a privilege that should not be abused under any circumstances.
DeleteStraying away from the freedom of speech conversation, I wanted to go back to what Alex originally said about gun control. In the social contract, citizens are supposed to sacrifice some rights to the government. Although the right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, wouldn't it make sense if the American people sacrificed this right? Obviously this would ruffle some feathers with conservatives but by sacrificing this right the American people would be better protected from domestic violence. I do however see the validity in your point regarding the accessibility of arms in the black market regardless of whether or not these rights are sacrificed. Alex, did you consider the possibility of sacrificing this second amendment right in the social contract in order to ensure safety?
DeleteI agree with Monica (and everyone else above who has discussed the necessity of freedom of speech). I believe that we should obviously not restrict the freedom of the press, which is one of our most important freedoms in this country. However, caution should be encouraged when publishing such thoughts through other methods of communications. The results of what is said should have already been explored prior to posting or publishing the response. In this way, the people are not restricted to speak their minds and actions/reactions such as the event that occurred in Paris with Charlie Hebdo can be avoided.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(my apologies Noah, I wrote my addition before I saw your comment that changed the topic)
DeleteI agree with Alex and Noah that gun ownership should be restricted. I agree with Alex in that people should be allowed to own guns. I do not think that anyone proposed a plan that would take away this right of the American people. Instead many democrats have proposed ways to make sure only responsible people get their hands on these deadly weapons and that the type of weapons open to the public is reasonable. Therefore, the conservative arguments against these plans make no sense. In my opinion, if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem with stronger background checks. Also, the argument that the democrats are trying to take away the people’s guns and strip their second amendment right is just not true. The second amendment is already restricted because people cannot own nuclear weapons or bazookas, so the plans to restrict other powerful weapons is not against the rules but rather an addition to what we already have.
DeleteJames, I disagree with your position. The background checks that are being proposed are unnecessary. The Brady Law, in 1993, instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States. So if we already have these checks in place, why add more? Politifact.com states that "of 80,000 people who were denied a firearm in 2012 due to a failed background check, only 44 were prosecuted." So instead of creating new laws for harsher background checks, why not enforce the ones already in place and focus more on punishing the 79,000+ prohibited people who weren't prosecuted after illegally attempting to buy a firearm? People are not opposed to these background checks because they have something to hide- but rather because it is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. If you say that democrats are NOT trying to take away the people's guns and infringe upon or strip their second amendment rights, then why is it ok for the government to further restrict those rights? To what extent will the government go to restrict the rights of the American people?
DeleteI agree with everyone who said gun control should be restricted. In my opinion, the second amendment has been misconstrued. Based on the wording of the amendment, I feel that the amendment gives right to the state governments to organize militias and swat teams. It is not aimed at the ordinary citizen. In addition, numerous news headlines have proven that when the wrong people get their hands on firearms, bad things will happen. I agree with James’ proposal that there should be stricter background checks. To those who argue as to why it’s not okay for the government to further restrict these rights, the simple answer is it is our moral responsibility to give up a few basic rights for the well-being of society as described in the social contract.
DeleteThe second amendment is what it is and we have trouble defining that right, but that right was written when a bullet had bad accuracy when shooting 20 yards away, took a minute to reload, and certain groups would not cause domestic conflicts over selling illegal substances. Therefore the ability to own a gun should only be given to a person who protects the people, but what of the people in the Midwest. It may take 20 minutes for a police officer to reach a home where protection is required, but by that time the victim may have already been attacked. Semi-automatic guns such as rifle or pistols should only be given as a tool in defense. if one lives in the city they should not have a gun because when people are mugged and shot, any sudden movement would scare the attacker and there would be no time to reach for a gun. Out in the middle of nowhere people should be allowed to have a gun that provides protection. Background checks should be administered for, past mental instabilities (such as anger to a severe mental disability), crimes of any kind, health tests (such as eye, ear, and motion control), and people should explain how they live their lives and what they are feeling to a psychologist so that he can approve that they will not use this gun for harmful reasons. Guns should not be allowed to be made by people even if they are in regulations, because it is very secretive and who knows what one is building and selling. The government is only trying to keep people safe with background checks, because it is saying "you have the ability to protect yourself" but the part people forget is "Having that weapon makes you a bigger threat not only to your enemies that wish to harm you, but also you are a threat to your government that protects you"
DeleteI'm agreeing with Alex here. Often time, firearms do compromise the social welfare of a community, with all of the shootings we have seen in the past few years (Sandy Hook, Elliot Rodger, etc.). Guns are not a problem until a select few people decide to make them one, which is where we as a whole society need to decide whether or not to give up the right to own a gun (or any gun more than a pistol, which could be used for self defense, basically there could be a degree of freedom we give up, rather than the whole thing) in order to have a safer and healthier environment for us to live in. Ultimately, it should come down to what we want, as social contract states, and not what a few lobbyist convince our politicians we want.
DeleteJoey, I agree with your statement that background checks should be administered to identify past mental illness or people who have previously committed crimes, but there are already laws in place that make it illegal for someone who has committed crimes in the past to purchase a firearm and to prevent those identified as mentally ill from making a purchase. Background checks are implemented by laws already in place, such as the Brady Law, that requires background checks for purchases. Also, possession of firearms by mentally ill people is regulated by most states. Furthermore, under T18 U.S.C. 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” You say that people should “explain how they live their lives” to a psychologist, but how can you guarantee that everyone will tell the truth? The people that are worrisome are the ones that do not follow the law as it is. How can you expect them to tell the truth? Also, you say that people in cities should not be granted the ability to carry a gun because it might “scare the attacker.” Why do good people who want to protect themselves have their Second Amendment rights taken away just because they live in a city, or because they my scare an attacker that intends to harm them? In my opinion, it is even more dangerous to live in a city without a means to protect oneself. For someone who is trained in shooting, it could take approximately 2-4 seconds to protect one’s self. So if people should be restricted solely because, as you said, “there would be no time to reach for a gun,” that doesn’t make sense. Also, John Locke’s philosophy of the right of rebellion states that the people should have the right to resist and even to attempt to replace the government. So law abiding gun owners are a threat to the government? We are a government of the people- therefore if the government should ever become more powerful than the people, citizens should have the right to rebel. And if you were in a situation where you would need to protect yourself from an enemy, wouldn’t you rather be a threat to them rather than be simply at their mercy?
DeleteIf the social contract is in place to protect people, and the people cannot be trusted with the destructive power guns (as shown in the examples Walid brought up and many others), why should't the government restrict them. That is, after all, dictated by the social contract. I agree with Alex about the NRA's absurdity. Why would you want armor piercing rounds and automatic rifles? How could that possibly solve the problems faced by society? I understand that criminals would have guns, and that people do need to defend themselves, but the propositions of the NRA are just ludicrous because these weapons pose a threat to not only the victim, but anyone around the incident. Is it worth jeopardizing the lives of these people?
DeleteYash, I disagree with you because mass murderers do not aquire the guns from the NRA. Having guns is one way to express yourself within the freedoms of this country. It shouldn't be the government that controls how you can express yourself in this country. Having a gun or belonging to the NRA does not make you EVIL.
DeleteYes jackson I agree that belonging to the NRA does not make you bad; I just think that some of their policies are a little absurd. But I very much support responsible gun owners. These people respect their second amendment right. Unfortunately, guns get into the hands of irresponsible people way too easily. National Institute of Justice reported, through interviewing criminals, that the easiest way for criminals to obtain guns is through an illegal market. I think Democrats and Republicans can both agree that this is a problem that needs attention to ensure the safety of Americans.
DeleteI think there is no real solution to this problem. As Jackson pointed out, murderers generally do not get their guns from the government. Therefore, regulations will not stop those people from obtaining and using guns in an oppressive manner. Yes, regulations can and do stop some people from getting guns when they shouldn’t. However, as others have pointed out, background checks are not an adequate method of determining who should and should not be allowed to own a gun. Just because someone hasn’t done something terrible in the past doesn’t mean he or she won’t do something terrible in the future. Since people change, sometimes quite drastically, I do not believe that any check can determine whether a person is fit to carry a gun. The thing is that in a perfect world guns would be banned. Only police and miltary personnel would be allowed to carry them. However, that cannot work in this society. First of all, if guns were to be completely restricted, then the same thing would happen to guns as what happened to alcohol during prohibition. People would illegally get even more guns if they were completely illegal. Additionally, there would still be guns in circulation from before. For example, a good person who doesn’t want to illegally obtain a gun will open him/herself to the opportunity to be oppressed by gun-carriers. Therefore, I think that guns are needed in our society for protection, and people should be able to own guns if they are deemed fit. However, I do not know if there truly is a way to adequately deem someone fit or unfit to carry a gun when there are so many variables to consider.
DeleteJackson, I never said that people are getting guns from the NRA. That's ridiculous. I'm just saying that the NRA has policies that are absolutely absurd and in no way protect the rights of people, but rather aim simply to see how much they can push for, and when people reject some of their ideas because of how absolutely absurd they are, they go off about the second amendment. The NRA loves making guns as easily obtainable as possible, which heightens the risk of someone with poor intentions getting his/her hands on them.
DeleteThe social contract requires that the people give up some of their freedoms in exchange for security and the freedoms that come with security. Though the people may give up some property (in the form of money) to the government, the free education provided allows for more freedom intellectually and when persuing different job fields. Paying taxes for the existence of public education does fit the criteria of the social contract because the people give up some of their freedom (to spend money) in exchange for benefits (better jobs and increased wealth in the future). Furthermore, widespread education is beneficial for most members of the community because they are affected by the advancements made by people who had the opportunity to learn (advancements such as medicine, computers, bridges…). As higher education is becoming more of a necessity in the job market, the President’s proposal to make 2 years of community public/free like high school, the people will lose some freedom by paying taxes, but will gain the benefits of a social contract by (for people who use this benefit) having greater freedom in the job market and by (for people who do not use this benefit) living in a more educated country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Madeleine in that education is an imperative part of our society today, and that increased abilities to proliferate knowledge will be beneficial for individuals. However, putting the duty of education onto the majority of citizens seems to be an invasion into the social contract that is made between the individuals and the government. In that sense, society should be viewed as a composition of many different people as opposed to one team. The reality is that we do not all have the same wants and goals in life; thus, we cannot be generalized as just one group, for that could lead to the assumption that everyone in the group has the same aspirations. It is a laudable idea to give anyone the opportunity to obtain a higher-level education, but the fiscal burden should not be placed on others to pay for those people’s education. By doing so, the government is infringing on the property of individuals; essentially, it is as if they are choosing how people should be spending their money. The money that the government is taking through taxes in order to fund community college fees may have had a use for the families and individuals that it was taken from. Yet since it was taken from them, the families would no longer use if for what they want because they really did not have much of a choice to not pay the taxes. And even though this would be paying for people to go to college and get a job and help society, there is absolutely no guarantee that these people would be benefiting society through their work. While there may be some who do, it does not warrant that they would be able to even find jobs after college. So should individuals really give up some of their property to the government for such a tenuous proposal? Though education is important in society, it appears to be an infringement upon the rights of individuals to take advantage of that social contract in order to benefit others instead of themselves.
DeleteSo you're saying education (k-12) shouldn't be funded at by the government at all? And that it should be for only those with enough money to afford it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHannah WagnerJanuary 22, 2015 at 2:50 PM
DeleteJulia, I think that without proper education in our country, America would be taking steps backward rather than progressing. There is no way that a lack of education would improve the technologies, philosophies, etc. of this nation. So, is not giving money to the government to aid the less fortunate, but rather keeping it for selfish reasons, worth the likely regression of the conditions in our country? I also pose the same questions as listed above.
I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation. Say you work from seven in the morning to seven at night in order to make enough money to support your family. Someday you want to send your own kids to college. But the government decides that you need to pay more taxes. So that means a good portion of that money will be going to pay for other kids to go to college. You may not have wanted to pay more taxes, but now you have no choice. It’s either that or jail. Would you want to give your hard earned money to the government to send a kid off to college without any assurance that the kid will even finish college?
DeletePS. I am not talking about k-12, I am talking about paying for community colleges; if you read my response, it was fundamentally about the new proposal by Obama to make community college free.
If you want my honest opinion then yes I would not mind giving more of my money to the government. There's options for college such as financial aid and scholarships. Also, when giving money I would have the mindset that someone else would be doing the same for my kid. Ultimately though, this "argument" comes down to a matter of opinion and that's that.
DeleteI realize you were referring to community college, but taxes are also paid so everyone can obtain a general education. You said” putting the duty of education onto the majority of citizens seems to be an invasion into the social contract that is made between the individuals and the government.” With that logic, why should taxes be paid for general education? What if the child and their parents don’t want this education?
DeleteSo Hannah; if we are just paying for someone else's kid's education and someone else is paying for our kid's education, why don't we just take out the middle factor and pay for our own kids' colleges? Furthermore, if it is a matter of opinion and you wouldn't mind giving money for kids' educations, why doesn't the government create a non-profit organization or some kind of charity so that people can choose to donate money instead of having to be obliged to? That way, it can come from the generosity and goodwill of people instead of coming from the compulsions of the government.
DeleteAnd Matt; you’re really just supporting my argument here. If the child and their parents don’t want this education, then that’s just a further reason why taxes should not be raised in order to send kids to school (specifically college).
I think spending on free education for those in need is absolutely imperative in order to give those who could not normally afford college tuition a chance to better their own life. However, this money will need to come from somewhere. I mean the republican congress is going restrict spending that is for sure. Also, Hannah how can you make this opinion? Are you actually working to provide for your family? As for the most part privileged kids from Bucks County Pennsylvania how is it possible to know if you were readily willing to hand out your money? I mean if you were a middle class individual as Julia was describing in her hypothetical situation I do not think you would enjoy paying money in to a program that may not effectively benefit your family for sure. People are focused on THEIR family not anyone else's family, especially if they are struggling to provide.
DeleteBut Julia, I do not have a high role in the government, so I cannot just tell the government what kind of charity to create. Yes, the people forms the government, but there are select people with greater powers than a commoner. So, if that's what you think the government should do then tou should try to make that happen. And Matt, I can make this opinion because as a matter of fact I do work to indirectly provide for my family so I can spend my own money rather than spending theirs. You have no right to say something like that. Also, I have been raised to put others before myself so yes I would focus on other people's families alongside my own.
DeleteI never asked whether you can do it or not. We’re discussing the merits of an alternative to raising taxes to pay for higher educations, specifically community colleges, and whether this is fair for individuals based on the premises of the social contract.
DeleteI agree with Julia in that education is very important in a modern society and that people’s tax money should not be going to fund students hoping to attend a community college. In my opinion, having community college paid for by people’s tax money does not seem fair to students who are planning on attending prestigious universities with high price tags and have been extremely dedicated to their work in order to do so. I am not implying that students who would use the government’s money to attend community college did not diligently work in high school. I will not repeat what Julia previously stated, which was"putting the duty of education onto the majority of citizens seems to be an invasion into the social contract that is made between the individuals and the government.”
DeletePersonally, I would not want my tax money going towards another student’s community college tuition when I, say, had to pay for 2 or 3 college tuitions for my children. While I do feel this way, I do not know of any alternatives to taxation in order to fund community college tuition.
I completely agree with Madeleine. This is a perfect example of an individual's right that may need to be sacrificed in order to ensure the future success of the society as a whole. I believe that along with with our unalienable rights, access to all levels of education, including college, should be part of the social contract. Education is arguably the most important aspect when considering the well-being of our future generation. All other aspects of society will fall into place when the people are well educated and able to form conscious, knowledgable decisions. The Social Contract encroaches on our personal rights when people are forced to make sacrifices that will not in turn benefit the society in the future. People should view society as "one big team". The Social Contract helps society work together in order to form a more productive society. People start to think in a more collective manner and restrain from making selfish decisions that only benefit a small portion of society.
DeleteI disagree with the president's proposal to make community college free. I agree with Julia when she said the burden to put others through school should not be placed on the others in society. There is plenty of ways for people to obtain a solid education without putting further strain on the American tax payers. If someone wants a good eduction enough then they should be willing to work for it. As a privileged citizen of an affluent area, you are probably thinking that I have no right to assert such a thing. Both of my parents came from lower class families and put themselves through college by working multiple jobs to pay for it. They wanted to succeed enough that they did it on their own. This may not be my personal experience but it still serves as an influence to my opinion that the amount of funding we have for a general education is enough. I think that people do have a duty to help one another but by the money going to the government, we have no way of knowing that our taxes will be spent on a promising, hardworking individual.
DeleteHannah, what I am saying is that we go to Council Rock North which is a very good school compared to most and we have a much better opportunity to succeed than the vast majority of students. I do not think you can argue that. With that thought in mind if you go into the perspective of another student who works very hard yet lacks the education and funding to enter a college how would they feel about this argument. It would be wonderful if people were as charitable as you are (not being sarcastic), but it is not the case. If all of the funding provided to you were not certain to pay for your children's tuition then why would you risk sacrificing your own livelihood and more importantly your children's livelihood? Obviously, it is the noble and kind hearted thing to do but most people in general would prefer to provide for their own family over before anything else. Since we are not afflicted directly by a weak educational system and we for the most part have the opportunity, whereas those who would most drastically be affected by having to pay the gov't in the benefit of other students may not gave such opportunities in the future with such a poor education background.
DeleteIn response to Julia's hypothetical situation a few comments back, I agree with Hannah. These days it is cheaper to send kids to community college then it is to send them to state/ivy league schools. A lot of people in the current times send their kids to BCCC so that they can recieve credit fir some of their classes and then transfer to a more prestigious college in later years to ease the monetary burden of going to college. So, if community college were to be free, then why not resolve our financial problems even more? Sure the money comes from taxes being taken out of people's paychecks, but this burden is definetly not as great as having around $200,000 in student loans (assuming you go to a college around $50,000 a year). In my opinion, taxes are annoying, but they aren't as great as paying off student loans for ten years.
DeleteI agree with Julia on the subject of increasing taxes in order to make the first two years of community college free. At first, the idea of having public college free seems like a good idea, but when considering the specifics you can see that it would be more beneficial to the average citizen to have lower taxes rather than having to pay more for a decreased community college that they may not attend at all. Even though public college education can be a great option for some, a large portion of the community will not be benefiting at all. A lot of people choose to go to colleges that are more specialized towards a specific field of work/major that they wish to pursue, and others, especially in more pressing finical situations, choose to skip college completely and go directly into the work field. So, even though free education at the community college level seems to be a good addition to our society, I believe that the average citizen should not be forced to pay those additional taxes for something that may be more detrimental than beneficial to them.
DeleteI think community college should be free. Because public high school is already free, the debate really comes down to if college is a necessary extension of people’s education. Well, according to president Obama, by the end of this decade 2 out of 3 jobs will require some form of college education. Sure, with more educated and qualified people, the job market may be more competitive, but at least everyone would get a closer-to-equal chance. In addition, people with a basic college education can create more jobs by opening their own businesses or even use new technologies that will automate low paying jobs and open up more high paying jobs. Moreover, traits that are suitable for the most important jobs can be found in people of all classes, so without the restraint of money, positions essential to the improvement of society would be dictated more on merit than on wealth.
DeleteAlso, to address what people mentioned earlier about the immorality for financially struggling families to pay for other’s education: because Obama is a democrat, it's possible that he'll only make those above the lower/middle class pay the extra tax. Even if he does not though, it is still an idea worthy of consideration. However, we won't really know his plan until next month...
I also agree with Julia. People should not have to pay additional taxes so that someone else’s child can go to attend community college. Like Julia said “it seems to be an invasion into the social contract between individuals and government”. More importantly, I strongly feel that education is something that needs to be taken seriously and only the truly motivated people can find success in the real world. By paying taxes that go towards paying for community college, we as a society are encouraging dependence when I feel we should be encouraging self-sufficiency and determination.
DeleteI agree with the unjust nature of raising taxes for such programs, however, taxes will not be raised as a result of Obama's plan. On average, a community college student has had $2200 of their tuitions paid for by governmental agencies and taxes. This accounts for more than 80% of the average tuition. Thus, taxes will remain stable with this new program in place since similar processes have been occurring for many years now. Therefore, the unjust nature of such programs being implemented is not a matter of money as it is a matter of perception.
DeleteThere are some important things to take away from both sides of the argument, but all in all, I support Obama’s plan to make community college free. I believe that the stability of America’s education system is closely linked to the stability of America’s economy. In this day in age, a large economy like the one we have today needs a well-rounded workforce that can be successful in the worldwide marketplace. In America, a well-rounded workforce begins in schools all over the country. President Obama is aware that we must improve our education systems for the student’s sake, and in order for our nation’s economy to be lucrative. The link I mentioned is not complicated at all, and can be agreed on by a lot of other people. Making sure every student in our country is equipped with what they need to go to college, and from there be sent off to help make our country a better place is truly a good idea. We want students like ourselves to eventually have successful jobs so that re can reconstruct a secure economy that is strong and powerful. To sum this up, I think that it is worth it to give some of our property (money) to the government in exchange for public education. I think it is fair to the less fortunate because they can have the same chances as some higher educated people in better conditions, and I believe that it will have long term success. Obama’s new goal of making community college free is not a bad deal when you consider the great things it will do for America. The social contract in certain aspects is not asking for too much in my opinion.
DeleteI also believe that Obama's plan to make community college free will help our country grow. In the age of globalization, the competition levels are increased and the pressure to be unique is augmented. By allowing more students the access to education, the pressure will increase even more, because more of the same kinds of people are pushed into the work fields. This pressure pushes people even further to become even more successful than the one before them. The pressure results in setting the bar higher and higher, gradually advancing our country academically and beyond.
DeleteI support free community college. I especially agree with Melody’s statement: future jobs are going to require more education. It’s not only in the government’s best interest to educate the people, but in the nation’s best interest. Personally, I believe one of the most important parts of the social contract is the fact that the people should decide how to govern themselves. We need to be educated as a nation so our citizens have the ability to support causes that will benefit the people. In the world of politics today, it’s much too easy for people to be swayed one way or another without fully understanding the concepts.
DeleteAlso Monica: if you’re paying more for a prestigious college, you’re going to receive a better education. Your school will have better resources available to you and that is why the price is greater. Students who will be offered free community college will have to have at least a 2.5 GPA to be accepted and maintain a certain attendance record. Tax payers will not be funding students who have no interest in education.
Julia: In your hypothetical situation, your person would be able to send their kids to community college for free now! If, hypothetically, they were aiming higher, take a look at this economically. If more education is supplied, the price will go down. This plan could potentially bring down the prices of higher end schools and help an even wider scope of American people.
I’d also like to comment on something Matt said about us being privileged kids from Bucks County. He’s absolutely right that we are better off than many other citizens. But let’s not forget that many of us will rely on scholarships or financial aid to help us pay tuition. These institutions cause tuition prices to go way up.
To make some of what we are dealing with clear: A main way of raising funds for the program will be to end the withdrawal tax break on the 529 Plan (and Coverdell Education Savings Accounts). The 529 Plan allows for families to invest money towards education in a tax free environment, and then withdraw that money to spend on education. Through the 1990s, the money was subject to tax upon withdrawal, but not when it was invested in the program. In 2001, Bush’s tax cuts eliminated this withdrawal tax. The Obama administration wants to reinstitute this withdrawal tax, with a grandfather clause to people who were already using the program. The average withdrawal tax for families who earn less than 100,000 will be about $500, and for those who earn more than $150,000 the tax will be around $3,000. With the current tax breaks in place, families with higher incomes are benefiting from this break about six times more than those without 6-digit incomes. Furthermore, the median income of 529 users was 142,400 dollars a year, and the families had a median of $413,500 in financial assets (well off, to say the least). The reinstitution of the 529 tax will mostly affect upper class families, when they (besides those exempted through the grandfather clause) withdraw money from this tax-free savings environment. It will cost money from middle class families who have invested in 529, but (by 2017 when it expires and is reinstituted) the American Opportunity Tax Credit will help offset the cost of the elimination of this tax benefit. I must admit that one of my concerns is that fewer people will participate in the 529 program if the withdraw tax is reinstituted. However, as the users of the 529 plan tend to be wealthy, and the plan still allows for a tax-free environment for saving money, this concern may not be legitimate. Any thoughts?
Deletehttp://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/23/what-media-miss-on-the-tax-breaks-in-obamas-fre/202247
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposal-to-cut-529-plan-tax-benefits-meets-opposition-1421811117
http://www.savingforcollege.com/intro_to_529s/what-is-a-529-plan.php
*PS- I know that this is very long, but I wanted to make some numbers clearer in the discussion
Free speech has been altered and taken advantage of. Ideals of Enlightenment are certainly acceptable and even advocated, but considering the negativity and danger it has brought upon society, some form of limitation should be enforced. For example, the option of remaining anonymous on certain websites give individuals the freedom to express whatever they want without any real penalty. If the individual says something offensive, there's no way to fix the problem. This creates more hatred and tension within society. As much as freedom of speech is a right, people have abused the right and should be taught to restrain themselves until proper sense and logic are understood.
ReplyDeleteI disagree Sarah. Anonymity is crucial to our society. Even our founding fathers would portray themselves anonymously at times to avoid being hurt (e.g. Ben Franklin writing as "Poor Richard"). And there are always consequences if someone does something wrong anonymously. We have the CIA that is able to find things like your IP address and the location of the computer. As for the hatred, there has always been hatred and silencing people for hate is exactly what North Korea is doing and that is a terrible way to let people live. It is better to let people be anonymous and hate than have people out in the streets preaching their hate (e.g. Westboro baptist church protesting soldier funerals). So I personally believe freedom of speech has not been taken advantage of.
DeleteI completely agree with Sarah. Free speech is tricky especially when you assume the people you are addressing have the same viewpoint and tolerance as you do. You must be prepared for any reaction. Free speech is a fundamental right, however, it’s important to be a realist when using it. It’s also crucial to show a certain degree of respect I remember watching on the news Pope Francis addressing what happened in France with Charlie Hebdo. Although it’s a tragedy that those artists lost their lives, the Pope said he wasn’t surprised about the ISIS’s actions. While a cartoon is by no means an excuse to murder, it was ignorant to believe that the Muslim community would not be offended by the magazine depicting not just depicting Mohammed, but also satirizing him. Religion in Islam is so fundamental to its society and culture, more so than it is here in the US and in France. Now, take that a step further with the extremists and it makes sense. The extremists actions are unforgivable, but not without provocation.
DeleteI agree with David in that anonymity is a right that should not be limited. Sarah views a citizen’s ability “to express whatever they want without any real penalty” as negative, where in fact this is what led our world out of tyranny and chaos. People would have loved to challenge the cruelty of the Catholic Church and expose them for their cruelties, but unfortunately that was extremely difficult in that time. Whereas now almost everyone has the ability to express their opinions nowadays. I believe the ease of expressing one’s opinion is why we don’t see the multitude of cruelties now as we saw in the past. The ability to express an opinion and have it listened to is what people have been trying to achieve for centuries and the right should not be compromised.
DeleteI agree with Caroline that freedom of speech is something that should be permitted but approached with a certain notion in mind of what may happen as a result of that freedom. Ideally, individuals should not have to worry about being murdered as a result of free speech, as the Charlie Hebdo workers were. However, it is wise to keep in mind that there may be certain repercussions for what someone may say, especially if it is provoking to another individual/group. And this raises the question of whether governments should limit freedom of speech as an endeavor to protect people from the possible backlashes. In my opinion, this freedom should not be limited and the choice should be left to individuals to whether or not they want to take the risks by speaking their minds. Yet the government may not be doing its job of protecting the people if it does not limit this right. Ultimately, it depends on whether individuals are willing to give up the right of free speech to the government in exchange for safety. But this day and age points towards the majority belief that freedom of speech is an important right of citizens and should be maintained.
DeleteI agree with Matt and David. Free speech should be an unalienable right in a given society. Julia stated that people can be put in harms way by expressing their opinion. This is in fact true but the matter of the fact is that it should be a responsibility that is put on the individual to censor what they say. While what happened with Charlie Hebdo is sad and is in no way justified, they did throw stones at a glass house. In other words, they "satirized" a religion that is known to have extremists groups amongst them. Yes, the government does need to protect their people but it gets to the point where the government should not be relied on to protect an individual who purposely endangers their self. They need to know the consequences of what they are saying and be prepared to deal with them themselves or simply not say anything at all. So no, the freedom of speech should not be limited by the government.
DeleteYeah I agree with Sam. Everyone understands that words can have repercussions whether they are good or bad. If someone tells you they will kill you if they satirize their religion, you understand the risk you are taking with your actions. Most people dont understand how someone could do something as horrific as that, but each society has its taboo that should not be broken. Freedom of speech offers everyone the right to express as much as they want or as little as they want, but it is a warm gun and should not be used foolishly. As they say, the pen can be mightier than the sword.
DeleteYes, I agree that freedom of speech has been abused and taken advantage of in a number of different circumstances. However, this is an example of how many of our freedoms are met with many problems that may challenge society's stability. We must be able to understand that the establishments of many personal rights inhibit the establishment of an ideal utopia. We should expect that there are people who lack the necessary skills to make conscious decisions. The benefits of freedom of speech far outweigh the negatives. Without freedom of speech, the countless advancements that our society has made today would have not been possible.
DeleteI agree with Marissa. Freedom of speech is necessary despite the issues it might cause "society's stability". It is essential that people give their input as otherwise changes for the better cannot occur. I'm sure this would resonate with the ideals of the enlightenment philosophers who themselves put out ideas that weren't always exactly with the mainstream of thought.
DeleteI am going to have to disagree with Sarah. I do acknowledge that freedom of speech does sometimes have its negative effects, like the ability to express hateful and sometimes out right disgusting statements towards other humans. That is looking at one extreme of the spectrum, of course those negative things do happen, but that just comes with package that is free speech. As David said, we have the CIA and national security to monitor the really heinous things that might be said or acted upon. Saying that we should have free speech, but it should be limited, is completely contradictory. Someone can say something's, but when they express an opinion that society deems wrong, that will be acted upon and possibly even suppressed. Either society is given complete freedom of speech, like what is currently being allowed, or society is given no freedom of speech. The issue of freedom of speech is, at least I believe, a one way street, it is either given or taken. It is ultimately up to the user's choice as to how exactly they wish too use freedom of speech. Going off of what Sam said, who ever is making public of their thoughts knows the risk they are taking. Someone can either take it negatively or positively. However, as I stated before, that just comes with the right of freedom of speech.
DeleteI have split opinions on the idea of freedom of speech. While I do think that freedom of speech is a necessary component that will create stability in society, I think that it is a privilege that is commonly abused. Sometimes, people think that because they have this right, they are able to say whatever gruesome comment they want because they will not be punished for it. I think that this rule should have its limits in that when a statement is made that is offensive to a person or group, or is a threat of physical harm to someone, the individual should then be disciplined in some way. On the other hand, I agree with you guys that the freedom of speech is a crucial component to the prosperity of our society. Not only is it an important element of the American DNA, but it also allows for the diffusion of ideas and knowledge. When people speak out their ideas, new innovations could be created and spread over a large area. Freedom of speech facilitates communication and allows for these ideas to be spread. As a result, society as a whole is able to benefit from this.
DeleteI disagree with the idea that free speech in general induces controversy. Free speech is a right that can be expressed by all people, good and bad. Thus, if an unsavory individual expressed controversial or even offensive opinions, it would likely not go unanswered. The right of free speech enables people to respond to opinions they don't agree with, using reason to sway others instead on repression. If the general populace agrees with one idea more than the other, than it will be more accepted. An opposing idea would not change that. In general, even if free speech allows some individuals to make offensive comments, it also allows them to be disputed and disproved.
DeleteI agree with Roger in how free speech does not cause controversy. The right to speak openly allows for people to express how they feel, as well as their opinions on certain topics. In general, controversy is the result of two different opinions or beliefs. Freedom of speech allows one side to speak out against its opposition for whatever the matter may be. Sure, freedom of speech heavily influences a controversial issue, but it is certainly not a cause for one.
DeleteJake, I’m happy to say that I actually agree with you about certain things. I do not believe that freedom of speech causes controversy. I do however think that freedom of speech serves many functions. One of its most important functions is that decision-making at all levels is followed by discussion and consideration of a wide range of views. A decision made after sufficient examination of a topic is likely to be one which reflects the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned, rather than a decision taken with little or no consultation. Freedom of speech is important at all levels in society. However, I think that it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the common people feel and think puts them in a strange position. The government that rejects free speech runs a risk of demolishing the creative and natural instincts of its people. Freedom of speech is also important to governments because when criticisms of a government are freely voiced, the government has the opportunity to respond to answer unfair comments about its course of actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. These have a habit of spreading across an entire country through conversation and covertly distributed writings. The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not publicly stated. There are a lot of other reasons why freedom of speech is important and why it doesn’t cause controversy. People are entitled to say what they want and feel comfortable as it is their right to do so. Freedom of speech allows one side to speak out against another side for a lot of various reasons. Freedom of speech is a factor in influencing controversial issues like Jake has mentioned, but it is most definitely wise to say that it is not an origin for one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that when the First Amendment was passed, the idea in mind was that this would enable people to feel free within themselves. Where the controversy comes is the fact that people have abused this right by hurting others. When Sarah talked about the issue of anonymity, there are two sides to it. I believe that it is one’s personal right to be able to say things anonymously if and only if it is for a beneficial self-involved reason. But, if one uses anonymity to be cruel to others, then that is where people have begun to abuse the amendment and there is no way to punish his or her act of hatred because they are anonymous.
DeleteThe idea of freedom of speech is not as simple a concept as some would like to believe. It is a freedom that should be upheld and I believe that it is important to be able to share opinions without fear of being reprimanded by the government as previously commented, and there is no way to have freedom of speech while, at the same time, protect the ones being victimized. Being anonymous is for self-preservation, their opinion and reasons for that ideology will not change if it is claimed by a name, and therefore their statements and anonymity should not be punished as Hannah's and Sarah's posts suggest. But, there is a point where freedom of speech is abused as seen in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church protests. These protests regarding God, sins, and homosexuals took place at the funeral of a soldier, and the protesters used the 1st Amendment to justify themselves saying that everyone should "pray for more dead soldiers". Obviously this is immoral, but should the government be allowed to go against the people's rights in order to alleviate suffering within society?
DeleteJake, freedom of speech causes controversy, which is exactly what it should do. People can express their own opinions, instead of being forced to conform to a single ideology. Then, if more people agree with that new idea, it will mean that it is democratically superior. Offensive opinions will have no way of getting a following as long as the general will ignores them. Freedom of speech has the power to change society for the better because it raises new ideas that challenge the existing ones. If any individual idea is not in the best interest of a substantial amount people than it won’t go anywhere, but if it is it will make a positive impact for those who supported it. With freedom of speech people have the ability to challenge the status quo.
DeleteI agree with Will and believe that people should definitely have freedom to express their opinions, but when it becomes overly offensive or hurtful to others it is wrong. I believe people just need to know when they are crossing the line and saying something offensive that can have negatives effects. There definitely needs to be freedom to express ideas and opinions in order for society to continue to move forward and improve. Overall, I just believe people need that human filter to know when to stop and understand their comments can be harmful for others.
DeleteThis is regarding the Obama and education question.Personally, I think higher education should be made as readily available as possible to anyone who wants to learn and is willing to put in the honest work. However, America has turned education into a hierarchy were applicants have to jump through hoops to get the “honor” of colleges accepting them. Since 1985, U.S. college costs have surged by about 500 percent, and tuition fees keep rising. Higher education has lost its true purpose. College is becoming a necessity in our society to have options and prosper economically. Because a lot of people cannot pay the tuition, it's created and is sustaining the wage gap issue. I think Obama’s goal is a good step to allow people who may not have the means to pay for a higher-level college to at least have a better chance to compete with everyone else. Without a college degree, it’s no contest and it’s a perpetual state of poverty. I’m not a huge fan of heavy socialist type goals, but for something as necessary as a college degree, it makes sense to put the money towards education in tax dollars. I see no better purpose. Better than being used for prison reform. Here is a link explaining Germany’s new policy (since October) on tuition-free universities. In my opinion, they are on the right track and share my views on how education should be handled.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/29/7-countries-where-americans-can-study-at-universities-in-english-for-free-or-almost-free/
Also explains some other European countries free or almost free college tuition policies.
I agree with Caroline that Obama’s goal to allow more people the chance to attend college and continue their education is a good step for our country. With rising college costs it can be a very difficult task for many families to pay for often more than one child to continue their education after high school. Free community college could help our society immensely. Although funding it is a difficult aspect of this goal I do not believe that putting some of our money to the government into this plan would be beneficial.
DeleteI agree with Caroline as well. I believe that a free college education will be very beneficial, especially to those not as fortunate. College degrees are practically a necessity in today's society and being without one lowers chances for a good job drastically. Although it does require a sacrifice to be made by the people in the social contract between them and the government, I think that this is a worthy cause. I also completely agree with Caroline in that college application processes are absolutely ridiculous and yet almost nothing can be done about it since, although we complain, we are complying with the grueling processes because we all desire to go to college. In our society, enough tax money goes to things that are not necessarily needed; tax money going towards putting people through college would be a worthy sacrifice that could possibly improve society as a whole. Obama's proposal is definitely a step in a good direction for the American education system and worth the cost.
DeleteI agree with the sentiment that education should be promoted. However, I would like to point out some potential effects of free college education. You brought up the fact that Germany has recently banned college tuition. The flip side of this ban is that Germany has 49.8% income tax rate, and it is projected to only increase after the complete ban of college tuition. While the free education system is not the only factor in Germany's high income tax, a similarly dramatic increase in tax rates could very well occur in the United States, too, if community college education is provided for everyone. Free nationwide college education requires a lot of funding for buildings, teachers, technology, etc... those who graduate from these programs and taxpayers in general would be faced with large debt burdens and high income taxes. So again, students would be in debt. Also, since the program is free, the standards of education are lower (the only requirement being a 2.5 GPA), bringing into question the quality of this kind of education, the likelihood of employment at non-low-level jobs, and overall contribution to society.
DeleteI partially agree with Caroline. The rate of college tuition is raising much fatter than the rate of salaries. Many students are coming out of college with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. The easy solution to the problem is to lower tuition. Right? However, this is impossible due to the large gap between the rich and poor. Realistically the people who would be attending these colleges would be in the lower classes financially. They cannot afford to pay anymore taxes. I think Obama's idea would just create more problems. In theory its a great idea and seems like a quick fix, but it is unrealistic.
DeleteTuition-free education is certainly a step in the right direction to closing the wage gap and is good news, however, the implementation of this is obviously problematic not to mention the myriad of ripple effects that this may potentially cause. America's national debt is only growing every day and considering the circumstances one could make a strong argument that this tuition-free education couldn't come at a worse time economically. While this would certainly be a tremendous help to economically disadvantaged families, is the theory of the social contract at all evident? Not to say that the "Social Contract" is the ideal organization of society, but there is truth to the fact that the people and government must work together to ensure a functioning civilization. Realistically, this means sacrifice on the peoples part and reciprocation on the part of the government. In Obama's new plan, there is a surprising lack of this "sacrifice" on the people's part and one must ask the question of how this is going to function economically. In addition while I also agree that free tuition would be a big improvement to society, this is a relatively new idea and we know very little of how it will affect this country. While it would certainly provide more opportunity to more people, it could, by the same token, do the exact opposite. How would America's already struggling job market react to the blatant fact that virtually everyone has a college education? Competition would intensify dramatically and unemployment could potentially rise even higher. I agree that this idea is a good one and has a lot of positive potential, however the timing isn't exactly right and as we don't know what would happen as a result I'd say it's a risky move.
DeleteJames Polhemus
I think free education is an excellent idea. If people were all taxed a little more in order to cover the cost of such free colleges then there would be so many benefits. Those coming out of college would not be in debt and be able to start their lives after college, therefore stimulating the economy with the additional jobs. The taxes would also promote many people to go to college in the first place so that they use the benefits they are forced to pay for. Additionally, it would allow equal opportunities in all colleges with regards to cost allowing more diversity and making the colleges solely focus on academic abilities.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBryn, a nice thought, but more people would want jobs after college and actually make the supply of jobs smaller than the demand. Also, community colleges, which from the start provide an education for a fraction of any other school, have a lower reputation than other high-class schools. All the students going to these community colleges would need to transfer at some point to increase their chances of work after college, but that will cost a great deal as well. Taxes would go way up like Sophia said, and more taxes might make the situation even worse than it is now. Social contract is correct in saying that we have to sacrifice for society, but there are better ways to ensure that kids get better education from the start, better chances to receive scholarships, ect. Even if community college cant be completely tuition free, the first steps might be better financial aid for students in need,
DeleteCaroline, I think that the college education system does not need as much of the support as the lower levels of education where the true problems lie for the less well-off people in society. In the public education system, it is difficult for people to learn the knowledge they need for college if they don’t have the means to support their family on a daily basis, so they can struggle with academics due to the poor quality of their education. Then, they don’t even consider college education because they lose faith in their own academic skills. The availability of college for them is less of an issue because of the substantial financial aid offered from many universities. The problem is that they do not get the education needed to qualify for those colleges. Maybe what the plan should be is to fiscally support these students that have financial issues so they can consistently attend school and get involved in studying instead of worrying about where their next meal is coming from, working all day at a dead end job, or resorting to criminal actions. If those students fail to focus on their studies in levels like high school with the financial aid that I’m proposing, it should be cut from them immediately.
DeleteI partially agree with Caroline’s idea. Would I love to get my education for free and then be able to walk out with an arsenal of knowledge and no debt, straight into the field I desire? Absolutely! I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t want that, it could help to educate our nation, get people jobs, etc.. But bringing up Sophia’s argument about the burden to taxpayers, I can’t help but snap out of this unrealistic (and quite socialist) dream. Just one blog over we have people arguing over whether or not the rich should have to pay more taxes to alleviate the ones that are being placed on the poor and now we are discussing the feasibility of providing college paid for by tax dollars? What tax dollars are we referring to exactly- the ones we are taking from the poor who already are struggling to pay the preexisting ones, or the rich who most likely in the future will be taxed increasingly heavily to alleviate the burden on the poor? The economy is poor and people are struggling to pay taxes as is without the government taking and diverting more of their funds towards free college education that citizens might not even be able to take advantage of as they struggle to work to pay the taxes! In addition to all of this, with the lack of selectivity that colleges would have to have to accept all of the people that pay the taxes would make the education less valuable and inevitably create a demand an even higher institution of learning.
DeleteThe issue of gun control could easily be solved using the idea of the social contract. Obviously we live in a society where we are not being oppressed by some sort of tyrannical dictator so we have no need to rebel. So, we must give up defending ourselves in order to let the state do that for us. While there are many responsible owners of guns, we have to remember that guns are not a toy and should be best left to the hands of professionals such as the military and police. Guns are basically meant for killing and as a society we must give up the right to kill in order for what is best for everyone else, the right to live. It is not fair for a law abiding citizen to get killed by a lunatic with a gun simply because they believe they have some right to own a killing machine. Britain has far fewer guns and as a result, violence is a lot more scarce. Obviously, this is a clear example of a society giving up their rights in order for a better society for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with David in saying that the issue of gun control can easily be solved using the idea of the social contract. You refer to the right to own a gun as “the right to kill” while many people who own them do not have the intention to kill and rather use them out of protection and a way to feel like they can defend themselves and their families. Also, giving up the right to own a gun wouldn’t stop many people from getting them anyway so violence and crimes involving guns would still occur but only with less law abiding citizens able to defend themselves.
DeleteI too disagree DKads. Although according to some of the enlightenment philosophers the social contract involves giving up certain rights for government protection, that doesn't mean the right to own guns should be one of them. For example, Locke believed that we only have possession of our own bodies and that the government has the objective of protecting peoples private property, legislating laws regarding the accusation, preservation, etc. of private property. The form of government is not important except for the fact that it must be a reflection of the people's wishes. If people wish that the the protection of their property, which Locke blatantly supports, is upheld, then it would make perfect since for people to own and use guns for such purposes.
DeleteI definitely agree with Nikki's last point where she explained that it will not be easy to control guns because the people using guns the wrong way are the ones who would illegally buy guns anyway. Also if only military and police could use guns then what would people who hunt do? This could cause an overpopulation in animals and cause a unknown change to the environment. With Jordan's point as well the social contract is a good philosophy, but in this case is non applicable. The right to bear arms has more purposes than just shooting to kill another person. People that live in certain areas need guns to survive and protect themselves, so would they not be able to have guns either?
DeleteI am in agreement with Brandon here. If we were to give up our right to bear arms, we would have little resources for self-defense. If this were to happen, society would be seen as every man/woman/child for himself. Also, look what would happen to the black market. If guns were to become illegal throughout America, illegal arms trade would skyrocket across the nation. There are people around the world who are willing to kill to obtain weapons. Imagine if this occurred around America with frequency. It would be destructive in a variety of ways.
DeleteGotta disagree with you David. By saying that because we dont live in a tyrannical society, we should just just give up all of our needs of protection to the government, are you implying domestic affairs as well? I can see your logic on a larger point of view, but if gun control was that simple, it would not be an issue for debate. Since most people buy guns for personal protection, does that mean we should give up our rights to privacy so that the government can protect us in our own homes?
DeleteSorry David, I have to disagree. Humanity's urges and needs to kill won't ever go away. Our species is stuck with that ugly trait. Guns are just the instrument, but humans are the killers. If guns go away, humans will find other things to kill with. They could make a black market for guns (and then the good people of society would not be armed). Putting our safety in the government's arms is not a good idea... the government is something we should always be wary of. They can get abusive. And if a government isn't now, then they could very well be one day in the future. Plus, nowadays we have our random terrorist attacks... so we actually do need something to protect ourselves with.
DeleteWith all this said, I entirely support a stricter system of who gets guns. I really do favor more strict background checks, and maybe even a check-in for gun owners twice a year or something. If someone seems unfit for a gun at these twice a year visits, then we might just get some guns out of hands that will use them in horrible ways. Haven't thought too in depth yet about this system I just mentioned, just so you know. Just throwing an idea out there.
And in America, we just aren't so peaceful.... we can just never be some peaceful little society. Most likely, anyways. even with gun control... Locke would support keeping guns, because he was about the individual, and saw the government as a possible threat, something to be kept in line. He would never entrust them even more with the lives of the citizens.
I also disagree on your solution to control, David. There are many situations where guns have not been used in order to ruthlessly murder, but rather to save a family who would have otherwise been innocent victims to a murderous crime. While it may be true that only certain people should have guns who are responsible enough to handle it, I agree with Matt and Brandon when they say that these irresponsible people would find the means to get the guns they require anyway, regardless of the legalities involved. As long as the invention of the gun still exists, those who intend on committing crimes with this weapon already show disregard for law and therefore would have no problem breaking more laws to obtain a gun.
DeleteI agree with David in the fact that there should be more gun control. My reasoning is a little different.
DeleteFirst of all, the government is responsible for our safety. There have been far too many tragic shootings as of late. The government was responsible for the safety of the men, women, and children who died, so I believe under the social contract they have the right to intervene.
Gun control, in my opinion, does not mean outlawing guns. It doesn’t even have to mean only the police force has guns. It’s about creating restrictions and checks so that guns aren’t just lying around.
If you want to hunt, fine. You do not need a semi-automatic rifle to do so. The same goes for protecting one’s family.
Also, the idea that gun control will only leave thugs and criminals with guns just isn’t true. America seems to think it lives in a bubble, but if we look at other countries that have gun restrictions (ones far greater than what we are even considering) their crime rates and shootings are far lower than what we have here.
The social contract’s primary goal is to ensure the safety of the people. From where I’m standing, more citizens have been hurt or killed because unstable people have been able to access them too easily.
Please tell me how forcing someone to have a license, have that licensed renewed often, and instituting penalties for not keeping track of your own gun will make it easier for people to access them? Those who want to own a gun will have to go through the laborious process and once they have it, they’ll make sure to lock it up so no one else can use it.
Gun control works, and we desperately need it.
I have to disagree with David on this one, though social contract states that there is this unspoken agreement in which some of our rights have to be given up for security, its not the governments place to tell an individual that they must rely completely on the government and have no ability to protect themselves through reasonable modern weaponry. Brandon is totally right by saying that people need the technology to hunt, and guns also allow people to protect themselves from nature if they are in that setting. The mass illegalization of guns would actually create the opposition that is supposedly going to be diminished by the lack of guns within society, and create a need to preform criminal acts to acquire one just so they can feel safe. Erin, I would like to believe that the general will of society has more morality than you believe and everyone does not have that burning desire to kill.... even though individuals within society are corrupt, they can be suppressed: fight fire with fire and all that jazz. Guns are imperative for society to ensure the checks and balances between the government and the people are equal, and individuals have the ability to provide food and protection for themselves.
DeleteKate, as I said in my post, gun control is not banning guns completely. And today's "reasonable modern weaponry" includes guns that no one needs for hunting or protecting their family. Get licensed for a hand gun or a shot gun. No one needs a semi-automatic to kill a deer.
DeleteAlso, I prefer taking away the matches rather than fighting fire with fire.
In the most recent years, the gun violence has increased. Citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.
DeleteIf you ban all guns, then hunters may get angry about that too because you are restricting their freedoms as well. If you do allow hunters to carry guns, where do you draw the line?
DeleteI hate to be that person that whips out the constitutionality argument, but I will be. Since the very birth of this country, Americans have retained the right to bear arms, as prescribed by the second amendment. This amendment was put into place in order to give the right to the people to protect themselves and their rights, Locke’s idea of rebellion comes into play here. By no means am I saying that rebellion should or will happen in America, however, being a country formed “by the people for the people,” if we feel oppressed by the governing structure put into place to maintain order and protect the people and their rights, we retain the right to rebel. In addition, not to sound morose, but how much can the government really protect you as an individual? It has troops yes, but they are meant to handle large-scale threats and are less concerned with individuals than society as a whole. It has laws and punishments yes, but these are used often AFTER the damage has been done (whatever that may be), essentially too late to protect you. Guns are out there, bad people are out there, danger exists, and while guns can cause destruction, they also aid in protection.
DeleteIn response to Jess’ comment, I agree that the second amendment is an important part of our constitution, but it should have common sense limitations imposed for today’s society. Jess, would you approve of average citizens obtaining rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.? Would you feel comfortable if your next-door neighbors had a tank sitting in their driveway? There needs to be some sort of common sense regulations “controlling” the ownership of weapons. The social contract claims that people must give up certain rights to receive protection from the government. Now, the modern interpretation of the social contract does not suggest that ALL people give up ALL rights to own guns, but the process of obtaining guns should be more highly and strictly regulated, with more thorough background checks and stricter regulations of gun dealers. Today in society the social contract is seen with driving cars. The government forces people to take a written test, a driving test, and obtain insurance when buying a car. Very few people in this country would disagree with this interpretation of the social contract because American citizens want to be safe. So why should owning a gun be easier than owning a car?
DeleteI am in agreement with Jenn on the gun control issue. I think that having a gun is not a problem as long as you know what to do with it and don't have intentions of harming innocent citizens, which is why there should be expanded background checks on individuals.As the quote goes, "guns don't kill people, people do". Thus, if the gun is in the hands of a citizen with a good background check and someone who has passed the strict regulations of obtaining a weapon, then I think they should be allowed to own arms. In the past scenarios where we have had issues with gun control, it was always in the hands of the unstable people. For example, the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was done by a man who was mentally ill obtaining an gun. Therefore, I think the social contract should play a role in this issue through the use of government issued background checks rather than by completely taking away the right to own arms.
DeleteI also disagree with you David, taking away guns from everyone besides policemen will just result in a greater flow of illegal weapons through the black market, that will in turn fund illegal operations run by criminals. Also, if certain people who live in dangerous areas want to defend themselves from people with access to these illegal guns, they will have to rely on the police and government to protect them, and these people can not help everyone at once, so many defenseless people could be harmed. I beleive harsher gun ownership requirements should be imposed, but the use of guns all together should not be banned.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it was irresponsible of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo to continuously portray the prophet Muhammad. Though I believe that the cartoonists did nothing legally wrong, I think they should have thought about the consequences of continuously portraying Muhammad. By portraying Muhammad in many ways that some would find offensive, the cartoonists should have realized that their drawings could cause a negative emotional response. I feel that they should have been more cautious. Knowing that the recent attack was not the first on the newspaper (2011 attack), the cartoonists should have realized that they were offending people. Though their publications may have been considered with good intentions, the truth is that some people will use violent (and sometimes lethal) force to show their feelings. I feel that after the first attack on the newspaper, the company should have taken some precautionary measure to ensure their safety.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with Joe. While it was irresponsible of the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo to portray Muhammad in offensive ways, it is also a basis of freedom of speech that they can use images and words to display how they feel. The goal of the terrorist groups that use violent attacks is the suppress all opposition an become a overruling power. If no people said what they think about the terrorists then it would be a win for the terror group. This was realized with the movie "The Interview" and how SONY realizes that it made a mistake by not releasing the movie on time.
DeleteI also partially agree with Joseph. The point of a satirical magazine is to poke fun at certain subjects in an attempt to raise awareness about these subjects for corrective purposes. What they published was still justified because they had the right to free speech. Therefore, the majority of the blame still lies on the terrorists who reacted with physical violence against a legitimate expression of free speech.
DeleteI agree with Joe in saying that the newspaper may have been irresponsible in continuously portraying Muhammad, however due to the large scale media coverage of terrorist attacks in the past decade and the newspapers own personal experiences (as Joe said concerning the 2011 attack) I doubt that they were completely blind to the risk they were taking. Of course they didn't expect this to happen, but the fact remains that there are always those who will challenge free speech and that while it is referred to as "free speech" it most certainly isn't free. While sometimes the concept of purely free speech may be brought into question, (looking at you NAMBLA) without completely free speech there is none at all. Hopefully this tragic incident will, if anything, serve to remind people of the true value of this virtue that we so often take for granted.
DeleteI agree with all of the above people, especially James. While it is considered “free speech,” there is certainly a cost. While the cartoonists could not predict the repercussions of their actions, they had to have known that there was some risk in portraying Muhammad. Like Brandon said, the terrorist groups need to be challenged because if they are not they “win” and The Interview is a perfect example of this. Although the cartoonists have freedom of speech it was slightly irresponsible to portray Muhammad because of how it may offend people and the free speech still has its costs.
DeleteWhile I support the cartoonists’ right to free speech, I do not believe that they should have been surprised by the response of the radical Islamic groups. With all of the violence taking place around the world by radical Islamic groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda in Yemen, etc.), the cartoonists could have been more careful with what they were doing. Though the cartoonists should have been able to express what they felt, they also should have expected a response from the radicals.
DeleteAlso, the radical Islamic groups clearly have not read and/or bought into Voltaire's "A Treatise on Tolerance," as they clearly are not willing to tolerate different opinions.
DeleteI agree with Alex in that they should have been at least a little wary of the possible repercussions of their actions and also exercised a degree of self-censorship. However, like Sophia said, the Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, they operate on poking fun at current events in an attempt to correct them. In my opinion, it all comes down to a balancing act between freedom of speech (Natural Law) and knowing when to stop given the situation.
DeleteI partially agree with Joe and partially with Brandon. I feel that although not tasteful, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist is just following their right to Freedom of Speech. I really don't agree with publishing the cartoon in the first place, but religious jokes have been made in the media many times before. I feel that we should be more concerned with how the followers of the Islamic faith responded in the way that they did.
DeleteI completely agree with Joe. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, although they have the freedom of speech, chose to poke fun at a controversial religion. Obviously, the reaction of the terrorist were extreme. However, people are not going to always agree with others and their opinions so people must be tolerant. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine so they poke fun at many aspects of society. The Muslim community should not have taken it personally.
DeleteIn regards to Alex's comments, I don't see how the cartoonists would be able to expect such a gruesome attack. The fact that these terrorists do not accept differing opinions and commit acts of violence such as this means that they are just evil. Rather than having all of Charlie Hebdo stop their satirical cartoons, the world should root out the evil that exists within these terror groups. I agree with Hailey in the fact that there are cartoons about everyone and everything, and to say that the cartoonists should have known that their lives were on the line is extremely unfair.
DeleteI agree with Jackson, it is unfair for Charlie Hebdo to have to consider the unthinkable consequences just from publishing a political cartoon. Cartoons are a form of expression and opinion; if one tries to silence cartoonists on speaking out about world problems, you are giving groups like terrorists all the power
DeleteJackson and Greta, I disagree. Like Alex said, I think that the company should be able to expect a response from their work. By promoting satire, the company is bound to offend someone. Satire can balance on the line separating comedy and insult. It is why some people find their cartoons amusing. For the most recent attack, the company definitely would have expected a response, as it was not the first attack on their business. However, the first attack may have been a surprise for the company. Though I am sure that they knew some people did not like their work, it probably seemed doubtful at the time that people would respond with physical violence. I doubt that the company expected no response for their work.
DeleteI agree with Joe and Alex in that they shouldn't have portrayed Muhammad through their cartoons and that the reaction from the extreme terrorist groups should've been partially expected. I understand that Charlie Hebdo has the right of speech and they definitely should use their magazine to portray the problems of the world. However, that does not mean that they can cross the line of a religion by going against their belief of not depicting Muhammad. Obviously, this will cause uproar considering that Paris has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in France and that Islam is the most practiced religion in the world and the second most practiced in Europe. Although the consequences that occurred were unjustifiable and extreme, they should've at least expected something to happen or a threat of some sort from the Islamic terrorist groups.
DeleteI wanted to start a new thread focused on Charlie Hebdo and free speech. I do not think that free speech should be one of the right sacrificed in the social contract. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo might have gone too far in some cases with their portrayal of certain religions. However, acts of terrorism are never justified. What some people don't realize is that in America we are extremely lucky to be able to make fun of our own government in movies, on social media, and in other outlets such as satirical news programs. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many parts of the world. By sacrificing the right of free speech, people are sacrificing too much to the government and are no longer protected and fulfilling the purpose of the social contract.
ReplyDeleteWhen sacrificing freedom of speech where can a line be drawn? This could give a government too much power and if there is a president that wants to oppress all opposing arguments against any of his policies, he or she could make that happen. Obviously with any social contract a line has to be drawn, but with free speech the line does not seem very clear. The Charlie Hebdo type incident would have to be addressed; newspaper and internet feeds that attack other countries would have to monitored as well as anything said about our own government and i think that is impossible and irrational to try to instate. One of the greatest values of America is free speech and it provides the discussion and democracy that America runs on
DeleteI agree with both Noah and Brandon. Free speech simply can’t be restricted, because the slightest restriction completely eliminates the idea of “free” speech. Although some may argue that “pure freedom” may be dangerous, restricting pure freedom is even more deadly.
DeleteI mostly agree with what everyone else is saying above. Like Noah said, I don’t think freedom of speech should be sacrificed for protection; however, it I think most of it happens naturally—if people speak out, they naturally put themselves in danger to the opposition, not because the government demands it. Nevertheless, if there is something wrong with government or society, people need to speak up in order to protect themselves from whatever society or the government has done wrong. Thus, the free speech utilized by the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo is justified so long as they are aware of that they put themselves in danger by doing so.
DeleteIn general, the free speech problem is completely bent on whether or not the people making or responding to statements are acting morally or not. The general reaction of being offended by something is usually not to commit a terrorist attack, but to explain disbelief in the many outlets available right now. Then again, Charlie Hebdo itself did not entirely act morally, making comments about Muslims that it did not see as wrong but in fact went against important tenets of the faith. Overall, even though free speech is a good ideal to live by, it only really works if people can agree to be moral. That being said, the free press is the lesser of two evils, and is better than repression, despite its flaws.
DeleteI agree with Noah. We are lucky to be able to speak in this country. And terrorism should never be justified. Freedom of speech is very important, and we should not give that right to the government. Though Hebdo did go too far, and should have been more cautious, they also had the right to say what they did. Freedom of speech is something we could all be thankful for
DeleteI definitely agree that freedom of speech is something to be thankful for, but at what point can a government take away certain rights, while still being comparatively more generous than others, and still suppress its people? Bullying is completely wrong, but now that there are laws against bullying (which includes just verbal), does that mean we actually DONT have that pure freedom of speech? R mentioned whether the actions are moral, but with so many different cultures, especially in America, and the different viewpoint on morality, who is to decide whether the words you are saying are justified or not?
DeleteI must agree with Noah and Brandon. When specifically addressing the Charlie Hebdo incident, it should be noted that the magazine has historically poked fun at all religions and cultures around the world. The fact that a few Muslim extremists took it too far does not question the right of free speech. We will never understand the power of freedom of speech until it is taken away, and it is a right that is worthy to fight for. As Americans we live with free speech, which I am very grateful for, as I cannot begin to imagine a life without the likes of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. From my perspective, it is necessary to point out the flaws in our system...eventually something will change. Without this right, the relationship between the government and the people is skewed, and leaves the people completely subject to the government's will. And this is an extremely dangerous path.
DeleteI fully support freedom of speech and the right to say whatever you want. However, it's a two way street. If you are saying (or drawing) something in this case, you need to be ready for the backlash. People have the same right to criticize what you say as you have to say it.
DeleteTo further this conversation about gun control, I want to bring up a point brought up by John Locke in his treatise. He claims that rebellions act as a safeguard against tyranny. He even states that it is an obligation for the common people to rebel in extreme circumstances. In the social contract theory, the governed have the right to rebel against the governors if their rights are infringed upon. However, in a hypothetical situation, what would the governed (the rebels) do with limited weapons (assuming that some are bought in black market) ? How could the rebels possibly defeat a military within the government that controls the gun supply? Without having the ability to bear arms, the governed are submitting themselves to a tyrannical form of government. The government would have all the power, and the society could possibly turn into turmoil.
ReplyDeleteLuckily we live in America where our system does not allow individuals to form a tyranny. Matt your logic makes no sense in today’s world. Yes during the enlightenment period the people could potentially take down the government with their weapons since most of the weapons were similar. If we lived by your logic today then it would be the right of the people to own every type of weapon that the government has in order to ensure our freedom. That would mean people could own nuclear weapons and tanks. With as many problems we have with simple firearms, I don’t want to see individuals with weapons of mass destruction.
DeleteI agree with James. Although an essential part of the social contract is the right of the governed to rebel against the government, it does not really apply to modern times. Guns create more issues than they prevent. Additionally, if a militia wanted to rebel against the government they wouldn't stand a chance no matter what weapons or how many they had. A militia would not be able to do anything against the military. It is not a violation of the social contract for the government to restrict the use of weapons. If anything, it is the responsibility of a government to protect its people by preventing shootings. By restricting the use of guns the government is doing this.
DeleteI agree with both Jared and James. The sacrifice of the right to bear arms is made in return for what is essentially the protection of human life. While many people purchase firearms for security reasons, hunting, or self defense, the potential for that weapon to cause destruction outside of those situations is devastating. The restriction of the government on the possession on firearms is, in my eyes, a worthwhile sacrifice for the protection of society.
DeleteMatt, you make valid points. And everyone seems to forget that just because today's government in the US isn't full out "tyrannical" doesn't mean that in the future things could change. Everyone gets so caught up in the idea of today being "modern" and not like the past, but they forget that human nature does not entirely change and that as humans we should never underestimate our species. We should always be aware that things could change for the worse, and that an abuse of power is always possible in some capacities. And if those things did happen, firearms would be helpful.
DeleteHowever I am not for citizens owning military weapons and really intense versions of firearms. But I mean handguns, rifles, shotguns, the more simplistic and common guns, those should be allowed.
And you also talk about a hypothetical situation where the government is only allowed to have guns, and how that would not allow people to rise against the government oppressing them... and I have real life evidence of that being a bad idea. I had family in Poland back when it was the USSR, and the citizens were not allowed to have guns. And they lived in fear. The government ruled over them like tyrants, and the government could only be armed. They used that as a fear factor, in my opinion. 2 soldiers would stand on every street corner in Poland, always a pair of soldiers, never a soldier alone. That is what I was told. And they each carried huge assault rifles. This would be intimidating to the citizens and alarming. It symbolizes how weak and defeated the people were, whereas the government was armed and powerful and abusing its people. And the citizens could not fight back. And why would they? They would be defenseless against the soldiers with the huge weapons. They would be thrown in jail, or killed, or something else terrible...
DeleteMatt's logic does seem valid, however I believe the social contract can not be used in this situation as a lot has changed in the way of technology. The social contract was created during a time of primative weapondry. Before using the social contract to decide this, one must consider how much the world has changed.
DeleteAlthough the second amendment states it is our right to bear arms, there is no clarification as to what types of “arms” should be legal to own. In my opinion, there is absolutely no logical reasoning behind owning a fully automatic assault rifle or other military-grade weapons. I understand that some people want to own a handgun for security reasons, as well as the fact that there are many hunters who own shotguns and certain rifles, but there is no hunter in the world that needs a fully automatic military weapon equipped with armor-penetrating bullets. In relationship to the social contract, Americans deserve the maximum protection obtainable. After all, we uphold our side of the social contract by sacrificing some of our given rights, therefore our government should uphold their side by protecting us to their full potential. However, this is only possible with more restrictions on gun control.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jake here. A fully automatic assault rifle is not used to protect, but to kill. The social contract here could be giving up certain types of guns, but allowing the simple hand guns for protection and the hunting guns. This along with background checks that are already being implemented could create a social contract that makes America a safer place, which is the purpose. I also think that there should be a law on the number of guns and ammunition that a person has. No person, especially if they are not hunting, needs hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
DeleteI completely agree with Jake and Brandon. It is okay to give up certain types of guns in return for America's safety and the wellbeing of its citizens. Brandon brings up a lot of good points about background checks. In addition, most massacres are committed with legal weapons. If we have background checks, there may be less innocent deaths.
DeleteI completely agree with everyone's opinions above about semi-automatic weapons. Even though it seems realistic that we could just make this type of gun illegal and still allow people to own handguns, I don't know if this could work in reality. If we made semi-automatic weapons illegal, don't you think their sale on the black market would increase dramatically? People would still be able to have these weapons, just illegally. I'm just not sure how effective this policy would be.
DeleteI agree with the statements made above, but I do have to point out that in America, hand guns are the number one weapon used in murders and suicides and have become the symbol of national violence. The conveniency of a hand gun makes it unpredictable and fully capable of killing just as much as a semi-automatic weapon may. Although this may seem radical, I believe that guns of all form should be restricted unless given permission to own a gun for a specific reason. I understand that this is near impossible, considering situations regarding hunters and paranoid citizens wanting self-protection, all guns present problems, no matter how big or small they are.
DeleteI think that John Locke's ideas are generally agreeable. People should give up some rights for protection of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For example, it is okay that we give up the right of privacy in airports in order to be safe from bombings and terrorists. I think that people should still maintain most of their rights, however. Once people start to feel restricted or unsafe, the social contract has failed. Society is one big team. People work together to form a government that helps them; people contribute what they can to the community to help further it as a whole. I think it is right for people to give up money to further education. Education is the single most important system in this world; without it, we would be nowhere. I think that Obama's idea of making community college free is a good idea, I just am worried about the financial aspects of it, seeing as the country is already in a huge debt.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that generally, Locke's thoughts about the social contract are applicable and agreeable. Like you said, we have to give up some of our freedoms in airports in order to maintain our safety. However, before 9/11, airport security was obviously not nearly as important as it is today. So we have to pose the question of whether we try to maintain the upmost rights of the citizens and then wait until something terrible happens to increase the security? Or should we sacrifice some of our rights as citizens to ensure that these incidents don’t even happen in the first place? Anyway, I agree with the rest of your statement saying that once the people begin to feel as if the government is restricting them, or their freedoms have been too compromised, than the social contract is no longer serving its initial purpose of benefiting the general community.
DeleteI also would say that Locke’s ideas about the social contract are agreeable. People should give up some of their rights for the security of civil society. We should look as society as one big team, but people can also have differing personal values. I just think security of society simply should come first. Obviously, public education is beneficial to those who attend public schools. I agree that part of the social contract is giving up some of our property (money) to the government because it promotes education, generally helping and ensuring a more successful future for society. I agree with Josie that Obama’s new goal of making community college free is a great idea, but it seems idealistic because of the monetary aspect.
DeleteBut how does this idea of giving up some freedoms for safety translate to the NSA and wiretaps? Is it worth sacrificing our privacy in order to prevent terrorism? Our security seems to be the most important thing in society, and the governement's job is to provide us with this security, but does that make breaching the 4th Amendment morally right?
DeleteI agree with Sam, I think that the government has exceeded its boundaries and that it is now violating the social contract. Many people are uncomfortable with how involved the government has become in people's personal lives; those who are not are usually ignorant of the in-depth surveillance taking place. I think that this is where people should draw the line. The government has resorted to violating constitutional amendments, at which point the people should put their foot down.
DeleteMichelle, I agree with you in that people should put their foot down. But I do not think that a violation of the social contract has taken place. The rights that the people give up for protection, are just that, given up. There is no violation until there are enough people like you and me to make change, to take some of our rights back.
DeleteI agree with both Jack and Michelle, for I believe that people should not give up their rights for protection, rather people should protect themselves. Also, I feel that the people should control the government rather than the government controlling the people. This type of society creates a more balanced and trusting civilization. Furthermore, in a society such as this, the people are not fearful of the government, rather the government works to please them.
DeleteFREE SPEECH
ReplyDeleteThere are three separate options as I see it in regards to the issue of freedom of speech. These are true freedom of speech (where anything one says is acceptable), freedom of speech with limits (the idea that one should express their own opinion within certain limits) and a lack of free speech altogether. The last of these is almost tyrannical in nature as it removes one of the most important rights a human should have, the right to think and share his/her thoughts. The first one, while it would work well in a utopian society, does lead to events such as the unfortunate one with the satirists in France. While the magazine’s cartoons portraying Mohammed in a negative light was legal, they were most certainly inflammatory. As proposed by Pope Francis here (or alternatively here), free speech should carry with it limits. You have the right to free speech as long as you do not attack others on a personal level. These limits should be self-imposed; the subjectivity of whether or not something is insulting makes it very difficult to cover these limits through law. Therefore, despite the need for caution with what we say, I entirely support true freedom of speech under the law, for everyone.
I completely agree. Freedom of speech is an important right which represents the advancement of society as a whole. This right is usually taken away when the thoughts and opinions of the people have the ability to undermine authority. However, true freedom of speech comes with similar repercussions as a complete lack of freedom of speech. Those with true freedom of speech must be aware of the consequences; although they will not be punished by authority, there is no promise that another group will not retaliate (as seen in France).
DeleteI agree with both Michelle and Reno. Freedom of speech is imperative for the creative flourishment in society. However, there is a certain boundary. Furthermore, if provocative statements are made people will react in different, unpredictable ways. For instance, in the Charlie Hebdo case, Mohammed was portrayed in a negative light and people reacted. However, the reaction caused innocent people to die and massacre world wide
DeleteI strongly agree with all of you. However, since we claim there is a certain limit when it comes to our free speech, where is that line drawn? Will there be a different line for every subject? How are we supposed to regulate this and keep everyone accountable to the same standard and get everyone on the same page of what the actual "limit" should be?
DeleteI agree with all of you. Freedom of Speech is vitally important to all members of society. People should able to say whatever they want (obviously with a few exceptions) and not fear that there will be repercussions. Otherwise, can it truly be considered free speech?
DeleteI’d like to bring up the 4th Amendment and an individual’s right to privacy. The 4th Amendment protects a citizen from unwarranted breaches of privacy, all categorized under search and seizure. Would that be a right that society would be willing to sacrifice? They would be gaining security from external threats but would lose privacy. It would allow for activity, such as the surveillance by the NSA, to be justified commonplace for the government. Does this fall under Locke’s idea of a social contract if it fails to protect them from their own government?
ReplyDeleteGiving up some freedoms like privacy should not fall under Locke's idea of a social contract. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens, and breaching their privacy does not do this. NSA and wiretapping is a direct violation of the peoples' rights and should not be continued.
DeleteI disagree with Sam. I believe that privacy is part of Locke’s social contract. People give up certain right in order to be protected. The NSA invades people’s privacy in order to protect them. Taken from the NSA’s website, “Each employee takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This means that everyone working in this agency is striving to protect the America and its people. Also, it is likely that the general public does not know how much the NSA does for the people. This agency is highly secretive and skilled in its work. It is likely that they use the intelligence that they gather to combat crime we don’t even know exists. Their work must be extremely valuable to the security of the US, or else it would not have such power. Americans give up their right of privacy in order to be safer also for the betterment of the nation. Because of this, it falls under the Social Contract.
DeleteThe government has the right to search because we may as Americans feel safe in our homes through the protection of the police watching our towns and cities, while the NSA protects the country by analyzing keywords and phrases in the information we send, through the internet, telephone, and landlines. But what is the real threat, other than terrorism and violent acts on our country. Hackers. Today's hackers can access anything, and the best of the best can hack ANYTHING. From cheats on a game to hacking the personal information and the use of other devices remotely. Who is protecting us is the companies that we are using online. When you go on google, they have the responsibility to protect your information. This data hacked through the main server that has all of a device's history, pictures, etc even if they were deleted (this is so any information when a person is tried may be used to find out other sources or to analyze patterns of how they planned their crime. We are leaving our personal security up to the companies that we use everyday, so our lives online are like the nobles under the king who protect their own town of people. Right now I do not feel that my privacy is safe from others, so I believe in order to protect our own lives online we must allow the government to make sure we do not cause any cyber attacks on others.
DeleteI have to agree with Sam. The NSA has no right to be searching through my information (and as silly as it sounds), I feel as if I should be notified each time my privacy is being "breached." And Gaul, as for your hacker problem, it is up for the individual to monitor his or herself in which they do with their information online. The individual should be knowledgeable and think before they act. As for the 4th amendment, this is a direct violation of it. Tying this in with Locke's idea of the social contract, if this is part of it, then what privacy is left after it is taken? Are any rights left standing as the government takes authorial control over our lives?
DeleteI disagree with Sam. While the NSA's actions may not seem to be a good thing, these actions do help protect our nation's overall safety from terrorists and other radical groups. Think of how many attacks have been identified ahead of time because of these wiretaps. How many lives have been saved?
DeleteRiley, I'm not sure there have been as many benefits from these breaches of privacy as you think. Locke still defended the idea of personal freedoms, and it isn't as if all these individuals are willingly giving up their rights. We can view some of these actions as breaches of the social contract, as the government is not respecting the unquestionable rights of the people. And I do not believe that most people would be willing to give this right of privacy up. Due to human nature, people are individuals first. Whether this is right or not, I don't know, but I don't see how society would be willing to sacrifice their right to privacy.
DeleteThe social contract should not mean society should be a team. It should mean a respectful relationship between the government, the citizens, and the citizens among themselves. We shouldn't have an entirely individual society where everyone fends for themselves either, but we also should not try to be a big team. Because then we start drifting off towards communism potentially. And I had family in USSR Poland, and I can tell you right now, the way they lived should not be how anyone should have to live. I have testimonies of life there, and how it was. And it was terrible. If we stray into the idea of "a big society team" then we also venture down some other potentially negative paths.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we should not be entirely for ourselves. Because some people do need help that they can not achieve for themselves. And they should be helped in some way. I mean I have an aunt who will never be able to work due to a medical condition, and she has potentially... at most 40 years left on this planet. We are helping her, of course, but some people like her that are disadvantaged and cannot do a thing to fix it are not fortunate enough to have immediate family or friends to help them like we help my aunt. So the idea of a society where everyone entirely fends for themselves is not good either.
For education, I think that paying money for public education is fair. I think that free community college is good and bad. Education is something I think is very valuable and can help a lot of people... it is great that it could be more accessible for others. But I also am not a huge fan of how the money for that is extracted. Because it just doesn't just affect millionaires, it affects anyone in general that is better off in some way or form. So certain members of the middle class as well.
I believe in the importance of freedom of speech. Protecting people from certain groups will only shield the reality. The restriction shields the public and forces it to see an issue as completely correct or completely wrong. The restriction prevents the other side from showing, which means the issue is no longer the full reality. Restricting freedom of speech also prohibits individuality. By conforming, a person is only appeasing the majority, but sometimes the majority is wrong. If another opinion or view is provided, the people from the majority are given another opportunity to analyze their current standing. Conflictions will most likely occur, but conflicts results in thinking. Thinking will result in more conflicts followed by more conflicts until a conclusion is made. Even after a conclusion is made, more conflicts can still occur. Freedom of speech allows for people to think and to think on their own. Thinking drives people forward.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Freedom of speech is important to society because it allows for the spread of ideas and new innovations that benefit society as a whole. In relation to the recent events in Paris, I think that it was extremely insensitive of the writers at Charlie Hebdo to portray Muhammad, but they certainly did not deserve to get killed in response to something they printed. You can't go around killing people just because they offend you.
DeleteI agree with you Eirene, I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms that we Americans have. freedom of speech allows government to be questioned, which in turn allows for advancement and reforms in the government. However, addressing Taylor's post, I do not believe that it was the portrayal of Muhammed that provoked the terrorist attacks. These terrorists were simply looking for people or groups to threaten and kill, and saw a good enough reason in the Charlie Hebdo portrayal. Freedom of speech should not be taken away, and the Charlie Hebdo people made no mistake in their expression of it through the portrayal of Muhammed, they are just unfortunate targets.
DeleteI agree with Taylor. It seems naive to say that the terrorists were just looking for someone to kill, in their religion, there is not supposed to be any images of Muhammad, Charlie Hebdo clearly knew this, yet went along with their magazine cover anyway. Freedom of speech is an important right, but individuals need to realize what is appropriate to say and publish and what is not. Although the terrorists are clearly in the wrong for murdering the twelve people, the editors of Charlie Hebdo are not in the right because they almost overstepped the boundaries freedoms, if that makes any sense.
DeleteSpeaking as a kid from suburban Newtown, PA, I personally see no reason for people to feel the urge to own a gun and then justify owning the gun for personal defense. We live in a very safe area with more than adequate police surveillance. However, I do believe in our right as Americans to own guns and what that symbolizes. Our constitutional right to bear arms symbolizes that our government entrusts its citizens with our own freedoms to live on our own terms free from tyranny, but expects that we will use moderation and act in a manner that demonstrates self-control. With that being said, urban violence is directly linked to the amount of guns on the streets so I believe the only true solution is to further enforce regulations that make it more difficult for people to purchase firearms, but not to take away our 4th amendment right altogether.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Ben. I feel that if we are going to have police and provide them with guns then it undermines their authority to provide civilians with guns. I almost feel that our right to bear arms should be taken away because it was established in a time when there was no police force for every county constantly monitoring for the people's safety. Having your own gun was necessary then, now it is not. I just recently saw an article about a child being shot because a gun was sitting out and another child picked up the gun not realizing what it was. We as Americans have no need for guns, we don't need to duel or go into war at any second, we have a volunteer military for that. If America is going to have a police force then we should give up our right to own guns, for our safety.
DeletePreston and Ben, I think you both bring up a very interesting point by stating your perspectives as a suburban kids from Newtown. And I also agree with the fact that I can't see the necessity for firearms because of the sheltered environment that we live in. But, if we try to take the perspective of people that live in violent neighborhoods I'n not sure gun regulation will be effective at all. Looking at it from a kid's perspective, how will he survive in an extremely violent neighborhood without a gun? Although there may be ways for this kid to get out, it is nearly impossible to think past the daily violence that he is directly affected by. It would be his natural instinct to arm himself at least for protection. Although gun regulation might reduce the flow of firearms into violent areas, I still believe the fear and desperation of these areas will result in illegal firearm exchanges. Sellers will be more than willing to make a profit off of desperate customers. So while I do agree with your point that it should be much more difficult to buy guns, I think it is just interesting to consider how much America can and is willing to do to really protect its citizens, regardless of class.
DeleteI agree with Rohan. Though owning firearms may not be necessary in a place like Newtown, Pa, I do believe that there are places where owning firearms is necessary. I think everyone is being idealistic when they say that restricting firearms will reduce violence. The government really cannot do anything about the guns that are already owned by people within the United States, so by restricting the guns that are being bought, you are only leaving the younger generations vulnerable.
DeleteThat’s an interesting point, Rohan, but if anything I think it strengthens my argument even further. Increased gun availability only serves to escalate violence in worse neighborhoods. According to a statistic I found on http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp, 340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun. I think we can logically assume that if these perpetrators did not possess a firearm, they would not have committed the aforementioned crimes. If public safety is an issue, then we need to spend more money on strengthening our police force. Increased gun ownership only inflates the problem and makes neighborhoods more dangerous.
DeleteOn the topic of gun control, I see many sides to the argument. On one hand, I believe that household guns more than not lead to unnecessary (not in the use of defense) deaths. Many people respond to that by saying that everyone would be safer if guns were illegal to own. With the social contract, the ultimate question surrounding gun control is: should we give up our own right to have a gun, (in theory to keep ourselves safe) so that we can let the government keep us safe instead? The real issue with that is trust. Most people would rather fend for themselves as an individual rather than put all of their trust into the government for safety.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think you're right Hannah in saying that people would rather fend for themselves than trust the government. I also believe that this mentality has come from many years of dishonesty and scandals by members of the government. If the government can show the people that they should trust the government by providing sufficient protection then I think the people should give up their right to own guns. A social contract that gives up the right to own guns in return for safety from the government may sound ridiculous but I think it could be reached if enough effort is put in by both parties to honor the contract.
DeleteUnfortunately I do not believe such a big agreement can be made under modern circumstances just yet. I think we need to first focus on implementing restrictions that do not take away guns completely but diminish the harmful capacity as much as possible. The social contract is still being implemented as certain rights are being given up in return for a safer community.
Deletei agree with most of what you said preston. i definately agree that both the government and the people need to work together in order for the social contract to be effective. However, i don't think that people should give up all their rights to own guns. with this being said i do believe that certain retrictions must be put in place in order for individuals to retain the right to possess guns. these restrictions would limit the number and type of guns an individual could own, but it would allow people to keep guns for certain circumstances like hunting.
DeleteA person should think as a member of society first, then as an individual who may have different personal values. If guns were completely banned, there would be less gun violence in a community (of course, this is idealistic as some people may illegally keep their guns), even though an individual may be left defenseless against criminals. I understand that this is a problem, but I honestly think that it is safer to make guns illegal to own because of all the injuries and deaths caused even by accident. John Locke’s idea of a social contract is that an individual gives up power in order to secure himself and “preserve the members of . . . society in their lives, liberties, and possessions” (Locke 1). I completely agree with Hannah that regarding the question of gun control, the issue is trust, but I think that just means people should trust the government more and think more for the security of society as a whole. I believe a trusted government is more powerful and stable- and therefore more able to protect individuals.
DeleteI agree with Rachel in her saying that their would be less violence without guns. However, I do not feel that this is a realistic plan that can be carried out because so many people already have guns and it would go against their rights as Americans too have them taken away. I feel the best thing the government can do is perform stricter background checks on people buying them. Their should also be certain rules on the way people store their guns.
DeleteThere should be certain restrictions on guns. First, the Supreme declared that:
ReplyDelete“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
During the Heller vs DC. The court also stated that:
“Like most rights, the rights conferred by the Second Amendment are not unlimited."
When an individual is in a community, restrictions should be made in order to keep peace within the community. Therefore, we should give up certain rights revolving around guns based on the Court's translation and the safety of communities. As mentioned in some comments above, guns unfortunately will not always be used for lawful purposes. These restrictions would allow for a safer community. The social contract is therefore upheld as we are giving up certain rights to uphold stability within the community.
I am not really opposed to anyone owning a gun. The production and the purchasing of guns stimulates the economy, and the second amendment gives the right to own a gun. Many people justify owning a gun for self-defense, but especially in this area, the chances that a gun needs to be involved in any situation are so slim, that it is more efficient to rely on the police. It is very rare for anyone to actually carry a gun around everywhere he or she goes, so even if that person were in danger, the gun may not even be accessible to him or her. Also, by taking away guns, more restrictions on toys and toy companies like NERF would also be affected, due to the increase amount of over-protective parents. I know that for many children, NERF guns were a big part of their childhood. My brother had six at one point. However, as a vegan, I am extremely against any form of animal-related game, including hunting and fishing. So although I don't oppose anyone wanting to get a gun, the artificial need for a gun and the fact that I am strongly against hunting and advise everyone against it, there really is no point for owning a gun.
ReplyDeleteTo argue that the right to own a gun is in the Constitution is not a very valid argument since the Constitution was written in a very different time. Other things written in that time have been outdated, such as the 19th amendment that prohibits women from voting, or the one that ordered a prohibition of alcohol. Even though gun purchases boost the economy, the ownership of guns has many more detrimental effects than positive ones. Most murders today are committed with guns. Coming up with a compromise to gun ownership is very difficult because people do have the right to self defense. However, there are so many incidents with guns today that more restrictions and regulations on guns would be nothing but beneficial. Even if an order was made only allowing police and people that keep us safe to have guns, it is guaranteed that somehow, some unauthorized people would manage to get their hands on guns. We must take all of these factors into consideration.
DeleteI agree with Rachel in that the second amendment should not be used as an argument for the right to own guns as it was written in a time period and culture that is not relevant today. However, at the same time, people do have the right to own firearms for legitimate purposes, like hunting. The social contract requires the cooperation of both the governed and the government, but the governed should not give up every last right for the sake of protection. While some people may argue that making guns illegal would be better for the community as a whole, it can be argued that since a majority of the crimes committed against civilians have been attempted with the use of a firearm, most of which have probably been obtained through illegal means, restricting citizens from obtaining firearms through legitimate means would only result in more casualties.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAlthough legally speaking, groups like NAMBLA can put forth their hideous ideas and thoughts, if group members act on their ideas and do something illegal, the perpetrator can be held accountable. Similar to Neo-Nazi groups, the U.S. allows for freedom of speech and freedom of association. Therefore, since groups like NAMBLA are not allowed to act on their ideas, they should be allowed to speak about their views according to the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteFollow up question: A commonality that I see in many disputes over constitutional rights is religion as a factor in argument. The constitution was not created when the United States was religiously diverse like it is now. Right wing conservative say that gay marriage for example goes against the bible because they believe that the bible is law which should be applied to the everyday lives of everyone. While Americans have the right to practice their religion and believe what they want to, religion can not be strongly considered in a court of law. In the example of gay marriage as discussed before, same sex couples should not be denied the right to be wed because of what the bible says. My solution to the problems is that we stop taking religion into consideration when it comes to law although that is much easier said than done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Noah. As I said in the other blog, any major change will take time, but the most efficacious way to resolve this issue is to take religion out of the picture.
DeleteI also agree with Noah that religion is the main controversy when it comes to arguments over various constitutional rights. Although in America people have the right to practice their own religion, I think it should definitely not be a factor in the court system as it makes decisions and rulings more difficult because it does not always satisfy certain people’s beliefs. I understand that religion cannot simply just be eliminated in the court of law, but I think it should be taken out as much as it can be in order to make the court system more effective.
DeleteI completely agree with Noah. The bible at this point in the modern 21st century we live in today has various moral ideas that are simply not applicable to society. Religion was an excellent way to unify nations in order to allow civilizations to have a moral law, thus ensuring order and stability. However, it is 2015 people and the fact that many states still prohibit gay marriage due to Biblical justifications is utterly ridiculous. I just can not even fathom how two men or women else getting married affects you in anyway. I think by the time our generation is immersed within the political sphere religion will not play nearly as large as a factor as it does in the republican party, and the currently growing moderate republican will be the norm. Nevertheless, religion outside of the political sphere should be encouraged in a manner where you can interpret your own faith and not infringe your beliefs on to others.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with all who have stated that religion should have less of an influence inside the political sphere. In order to solve the multitude of issues across the world, religion has to be taken out of the picture. However, as Noah stated, it is easier said than done. With that being said, the freedom of speech should take precedence over all other freedoms. Imagine what life would be like if one could not speak his own thoughts to the public because he is afraid of being punished by his own government. I just cannot fathom this concept. In order to become a successful person in the modern era, one needs to become a vocal leader who is not afraid to go against the ideas of larger corporations or governments. The freedom of speech allows for this to happen.
DeleteI agree with what has been said. America does not have any religious affiliation and the government should not be affected by religion. People have freedom of religion and therefore creating laws and banning certain actions such as gay marriage because of the bible is wrong. The government is separated from the church, and therefore referring to the bible when making laws is bad. Regarding religion when creating laws in unproductive because senators and representatives have different religions, which will cause disagreements. If the practice continues, religion will become a large factor when voting for government officials.
DeleteI think Noah brings up a great point. When we look at most arguments regarding constitutional rights, the most common factor of dispute seems to be religion. However, I think proposing to disregard religion and biblical justifications in our laws and amendments would be nearly impossible. This is the way that we have structured our society since our creation, initiating rules and obligations that must be followed in order to possess all of the freedoms that come along with being an American. Simply readjusting our means of protection and privilege would create even more of a problem than we currently face now. This is why I believe that all of these protections should be placed on an equal scale. No one is "forced" to recognize or acknowledge these rights nor are they expected to apply them to their everyday lives. Although this means that there isn't much room for change, I think this is the only way that America can ensure domestic success in our future.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete