Using the article, "Aristotle's Philosophy of Equality, Peace, and Democracy" by Matt Qvortrup (Philosophy Now, October/November 2016), let's examine what Aristotle said about these three topics in his lecture notes, The Politics, and how they still resonate with us today.
When it comes to equality, Aristotle felt that political leaders have to find ways to keep people happy. "The truly democratic statesman must study how the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty" (Politics). The official poverty rate in America in 2015 was 13.5% (for Black Americans it was 24.1% and Latino Americans it was 21.4% and Asian Americans 11.4%). There are about 19 million people in America living in extreme poverty, making about $10,000 annually for a family of four. This would be one area where an American President and Congress would start, according to Aristotle. In order to make sure that everyone was happy, according to Qvortrup, Aristotle advocated "measures... that bring about lasting prosperity for all" and was willing to redistribute the wealth of all: "The proper course is to collect all the proceeds of the revenue into a fund and ditribute them in lump sums" (Politics). We do something similar today with our taxes that go for welfare, Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare, and other aid programs. But it sounds like Aristotle advocated something more drastic than what we have today.
In the second part of the article, Aristotle gives us the key to ending our culture of political violence and terrorism - including minorities and increasing democratic engagement in order to lessen inequality and lower levels of violence. When we look at civic engagement in America, there has been a recent push by Emily's List to increase the number of women and specifically women of color to run for office in America since November 2016. When looking at the gender make up of Congress, our highest law making body, it is 80% male, 80% white, and 92% Christian (see charts below). Aristotle would likely scoff at these numbers and say that things need to change. But the question remains how?
Also, the article questions how we deal with terrorism and political violence. Written from a British point of view (but similar to America's responses), Qvortrup questions whether increased surveillance and military action are the best ways to deal with domestic or international terrorism. 
In the last section of the article on constitutional democracy, Qvortrup stated that Aristotle made a massive study of constitutions, but only his study of Athens' constitution is the one that survives. He found that balanced constitutions work best, with an enlightened and elected aristocracy (based on "uncommon prudence and intelligence, not wealth") making the laws and the people having a say-so on those laws. Today, you practically need to be a millionaire to run for national office, or raise hundreds of millions of dollars to compete and possibly win. A wealthy aristocracy (made up of white Christian men) appears to be running our country. However, they seem to have listened to their constituents lately when it comes to health care repeal and possibly tax cuts for the rich. The next issue Americans need to be heard on is net neutrality (here's an article on what it is and why you should care - http://gawker.com/what-is-net-neturality-and-why-should-i-care-the-non-g-1657354551). Aristotle believed in the wisdom of the crowd and that the more people deliberated over an issue, the better. I tend to agree with this, that enlightened discourse about a topic is much more effective than just watching commercials about it. But is this enlightened discourse still possible today? Questions for you to answer (answer one from each part for a total of three questions):
Part A
1. Should the aim of government be to increase the general happiness of its people - even if this means redistributing peoples' wealth? Why or why not?
Part B
2. Should women and people of color be more included in governing bodies at all levels of government? How do we get more people to run?
3. Should America change the way it deals with political violence / terrorism from its current ways of increasing surveillance and military action? Why or why not?
Part C
4. Do you trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decisions most of the time? Why or why not?
5. Is it impossible to have an enlightened discourse in today's age of sound bites and social media and fake news? Why or why not?
Poverty facts came from https://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/
Info on current Congress: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/?utm_term=.ed49da3978f6
350 word minimum response. Due Wednesday, Dec. 20 by class time.
Part A
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that one of the government’s main priorities should be to increase the general happiness of its citizens. The government’s job is to provide us, the people, with services that we cannot really provide for ourselves. This could include things like public transportation, social welfare programs, or other services we need provided to us. These services might bring happiness or a sense of safety to citizens within a government system. I think that eavan a distribution of wealth is necessary in governments to ensure that everyone is living a somewhat decent life that is not in poverty. If you are making more than enough money to sustain yourself and your family, I see no reason why you shouldn't get taxed a little more heavily to help those in need.
Part B
I 100% believe that women and people of color should be more included and represented in all levels of government. Just like Aristotle said, having more women and people of color in government positions reduces the levels of terrorism and violence within a society. I also believe there should be more equal representation within our government because I feel it is extremely important for all people to feel like they are being represented by some group of people, whether that is by race, gender, economic status, or sexual orientation. I think that in order to get more diverse groups of people to run for government jobs, we need to educate children earlier and let them know that they can do something great and impactful someday. By inspiring kids to have more confidence in themselves, and telling them that they can be president or senator someday will allow them to strive towards these goals.
Part C
For the most part, the answer to this question for me is yes. I believe, just like Aristotle, that with more people coming together and sharing ideas, each person brings something to the table, and it is possible to come to a better and more logical conclusion. With more people, there is more wisdom and a greater possibility to come up with good ideas. However, there are certain negative psychological things that can happen to people when in large groups of people. Social loafing, for example, refers to people not doing as much work in a group because they expect others in the group will do it for them. Or in another case, the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility principles state that people are less likely to help in a situation where someone else is in need when in large groups because they can shift the responsibility onto others.
Sara Seid
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that the governments goal should be its citizens happiness. The main goal should be the success of the country as a whole. Happiness should be a result of good governing. I think it’s goal is to be equal in redistributing wealth which would then lead to happiness. It might not happen immediately but in the long run, it’s evenness will please people.
2. I totally think more women and people of color should be involved in politics. I especially believe that it would change the dynamics and the outcome of politics in our country as well. I don’t think that our population currently is properly represented in our government. The only way for women or people of color to be a normal process is to just try. The more we see of women running for office and people of color as well, it will encourage others to join in as well. It won’t do any good for government, if we stay stuck in an endless cycle of the same thing. Over time it becomes draining and you start to give up. People like Hillary Clinton, paved the way and opened the gate for more women to want to run. The needs to be a pioneer who is willing to take the risk.
3. I don’t know if I have enough knowledge on our military but, I don’t think terrorism can be solved by having a greater military. Sure our military is a strength, but terrorism is greater than that. It can’t be blamed on a specific group, and it can’t be solved with violence. Surveillance and military invoke fear. People should be encouraged to stand up for what is right and act peacefully.
4. I guess it depends but I can’t say I would trust the wisdom of the crowd. Mob mentality is a real thing, and even if intelligent people exist, they can be covered up by the anger and power people feel when they’re in numbers. But on the other hand I think that there is more strength in putting heads together to solve a problem. Overall, I don’t trust the crowd. I’m a cynic and I think it would all end really badly and not in favor of what the original outcome was hoped to be.
5. I don’t think it’s impossible to have enlightened discourse in today’s society. However, I do think that it might be harder to achieve in a world of fake news and things of the like. But, like with everything, if you put in effort and use accurate resources and do this carefully, I don’t see why it couldn’t happen.
Alexis Kruntovski Blog 78
ReplyDeleteCategory 1
I think that the government’s should aim to increase the general happiness of its people because a happier population will not resort to violence against its leaders. Aristotle pointed out that if a government or constitution is fair to the general public, then the people wouldn’t react to such extreme action to disassemble it. If the government redistributed the people’s wealth based on level of income then the majority of the people (who aren’t rich) would benefit greatly. However, the rich would not be as keen on the idea because their fortune would decrease slightly. The rich only make up so many people, and those who need money for a basic life are in greater amount than those who feel their lives require the highest level of extravagance. I think that making the country in total more stable in terms of everyone’s lives instead of making sure those who have the most money can just increase their wealth is more important of an issue for the government to deal with.
Category 2
I think women and people of colour should be more included in governing bodies at all levels of government. Aristotle thought that a collective opinion that is a result of collaboration between those of different demographics would result in a more accurate decision and I agree with that. I think that a government that is made up of mainly one kind of person (for example christian white males in the US) is not an entirely representative decisive group. Sometimes it is difficult to see and understand others’ stance and experiences because you aren’t them. Because of this, a single sided government might not be able to factor in the weight of other’s experiences and opinions into their decisions and eventual rules that will apply to the entire diverse community they might not entirely understand. I think we could get more people to run by reducing the theatrics of running for office. For example, the petty rumors and televised cat fights that involve insults not coming from a political standpoint but from a purely childish motivation. People might fear being embarrassed in front of the masses. I think that sending an overview of candidates opinions on issues in an easily accessible manner could help and reducing theatrics could help people see it’s about what you can do for the people of your country, not how entertaining of a show you can put on.
Category 3
I think it is impossible to have an enlightened discourse in today’s age of sound bites and social media and fake news because now that these technologies are available, it is too powerful of a tool for candidates and the masses not to take advantage of. I think that knowing all that you can about someone, especially someone that will be representing you on a political scale, is the instinct for a lot of people. Questions considering candidates’ past and views are common, for example: Was this person in the peace corps? Are they a military person? Have they been involved with politics or have considerable qualification? Even questions not considering who this person is as a politician, rather as to who they are as a person in general (the good and the very bad), are way more common because we have access to all of this information and we can’t help but associate that person with all the things we see or hear about them. For example: Did they cheat on their partner? Were they born here? What did they wear to this event? Although some of this information we may think is helping us make a more informed decision, you could argue that some of it (or a lot of it) is blurring you from making a logical decision.Technology puts a fog of emotion in front of logic answers.
The aim of the government should be to organize the people in order to keep a safe and stable society. Instead of the government being tasked to increase the general happiness of the people there should be separate organizations to do that job. Moreover, gathering the all the wealth of the US and evenly distributing it would be an extremely hard task to do as it requires much planning and would waste a lot of money in the process of trying to extract the money. Even if we were to theoretically do it and everybody got an equal amount of money we would eventually be in the same place as certain people pick up certain talents or become more successful.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that women and/or people of different ethnicities and races should be included in governing bodies as doing so opens up so many more doors of different viewpoints and merit. With a more diverse government I feel that minority groups will not be discriminated against as much and there will be higher representation in those minorities. The fact that ~80% of people working in congress is men just shows how underrepresented America is and if we want to progress as a society we need a diverse government. To go about this we could promote this idea by showing the people what a society with a diverse government could look like. Spark discussion among the public and wait for a new generation of government workers to come in. With this new generation will come more people who will want a change in our government’s representation through the previous discussions mentioned before.
I think that in today’s age of smartphones and technology we are more prone to blindly go with what the crowd says. To have an enlightened discourse means to have a rational conversation with both sides in mind of what you’re saying in order to fully express what you feel. Nowadays there are so many far left and far right websites and youtube channels to the point where if anybody doesn’t want to hear the other side they simply have to stick to what they want to hear. This ignorance is more prominent in today than it was before with a generation that depends on technology for news and information. Although it’s not completely impossible to have an enlightened conversation with someone it would be a very rare case to find a teenager or “igen’ to talk to who is very educated in politics and acknowledges both sides’ views whilst also inputting what they think as well.
The goal of the government should be to increase the happiness of all of its people even if it does mean redistributing the wealth of its people. This is because people should not be in poverty and in terrible living conditions because of their income, when there are people with an abundance of wealth to spare. It would create a greater total amount of happiness if everyone could live in a normal quality of life, because people can achieve happiness with a normal income. However those that are in a constant struggle for their survival because of a lack of money face many obstacles when it comes to being happy. Although the government shouldn’t penalize the rich a lot because taking a large enough portion of their income would be unjust, as the need of the poor are outside of their control.
ReplyDeleteThe government should incorporate more minorities, females, and people of more diversity within governing bodies. This would be beneficial so that the government could have more perspectives on issues regarding equality or policies on minorities. As of now, the current congress is incredibly dominated by white males, with about 80% of the house being males. This also holds true with 80% of the house and 94% of the senate being white. This large domination of the government doesn’t represent the U.S.’s population, as there are many more minorities and females. Due to this inaccurate representation, decisions made by the government are skewed towards white men’s interest. This can be achieved by increasing education opportunities for minorities and women or improving schools around the country, which will in turn give them the resources to be more of a part of the government. Improving schools can also educate everyone, perhaps mainly white men, on equality and feminism, improving treatment towards these groups, which will also give them better opportunities.
I do not trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decisions most of the time (although “right” is relative to what most people consider to be the better option). I feel that the crowd of America is fairly easy to convince with social pressures, and with that, it is possible to make a large group support one decision when they don’t fully know the issue or consequences of the decision. One current example of this is the recent issue of net neutrality, where a lot of people backed net neutrality, without fully understanding what it is, what it would mean if net neutrality is taken away, and the fact that net neutrality wasn’t in effect before 2015. People are prone to follow their friends and family in their beliefs and often people aren’t determined to individually discover the gravity of issues and the consequences of the decisions.
I feel as if the government should aim to increase the general happiness of the people as best as possible. I know that not everyone will feel as if they’re happy and someone will always feel like they are underrepresented but that’s more of a permanent issue. However, I do not feel that it should be monetarily redistribute money that each individual has earned and divided up so everyone gets a fair share. Certain people work hard for their money and should be theirs to keep. Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t at least try to divide certain amounts like we are currently doing now but just not the whole entire salary of the nation. Yes of course women and people of color should be more included in government but there’s going to be some type of backlash against that. I understand that some people may not like that idea but this a better way to represent all people living in this melting pot we call a country. We should have more women and people of color so then more perspectives are being represented in our government besides seeing white straight males all the time. We obviously have more than just white straight males in this country so lets show that these other perspectives are present. Honestly, I try my best to listen to the crowd and their best judgement but sometimes we as a people get things wrong as a people. I feel that the masses should at least try to hear all sides before trying to say which side is better or not. Nowadays, it’s just people going back and forth without trying to understand what the other is coming from. This can be seen when Trump and Hillary were the ones who could’ve been our president, the protests of black lives matter and how certain people missed the point of saying black lives matter (of course all lives matter but when you say that all lives matter, in a counter protest, it makes you seem kinda shallow in the topic since the point was saying that black people matter in this country also, ALONG WITH other races and ethnicities). I just feel that if people actually tried to sit down and listen to the opposing views without conflict, still able to say you disagree, the country could be somewhat better. Along with that, let’s try to focus more on intellect than money even though money is this country’s driving force.
ReplyDeleteGio|
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that the government’s main job is not to make its people happy persay. I don’t think that taking money from the wealthy, and hand it to the poor is a great idea. The wealthy work hard for their money, even though they make a ton more money than the poor, they still worked for it. I see the government as a protector of the people, it isn’t exactly to keep the people happy, it’s more to keep them safe. If the government can make people happy it is always a plus, but taking something that people worked for and giving it to someone else is a pretty crappy thing to do. If the government was only here to keep the people happy we would live in a near communist country, everyone is in a constant state of contentment; but no one can really get ahead. I think that if you try to keep everyone happy you will bring others down as a result.
I think that if a woman or person of color is the most qualified then they should be in congress, however if there is a white man that is more qualified or intelligent than they should get the job. I think that diversity is important, giving people a window into different points of views and different backgrounds is the best way to broaden people’s mind. I don’t think that diversity should trump qualifications, if someone is better for the job, they should get it regardless of their gender, or race, or sexual orientation.
I think that the wisdom of the crowd is a viable way to govern, but there should be ways to limit how the biggest group governs. I think that our system of government does a good job at this, the electoral college is my best way to show this. The electoral college was designed to keep uneducated masses from taking over the system, and to prevent terrible fad leaders from doing the same. Though it doesn’t work all the time, it doesn’t have a terrible track record from doing its job.
Lindsay H
ReplyDeletePart A:
1.I don’t think that the aim of the government should be to increase the general happiness of its people. To me that’s not really the main point, but I do believe it should be a high priority. The Constitution says that all people have to right to the pursuit of happiness and I think the government should do what they can to promote this and help people. As for redistributing peoples’ wealth, I believe that to some extent we should help others by redistributing the wealth but at the same time I feel like it one person works harder than another at the same job they should receive more because they’ve put in more effort. A lot of the time people are living in poverty as a result of things out of their control and we should do what we can to help them.
Part B:
2. Women and people of color should absolutely be more included in governing bodies at all levels of government. We can get more people to run by making them feel more accepted in society so that they might feel less pressure or more motivation to run. If people are better informed than they might be more motivated to run for office and try to make things better. We could maybe start some youth or student programs/organizations for marginalized groups and women to get them more interested in these areas, kind of like how they’re doing for STEM now.
3. I don’t think I know enough about this area to give a good answer. If I said that we should change it, I wouldn’t be able to come up with any alternative solutions but I don’t think I can say no because my knowledge is limited. So I don’t know what we would do instead of increased surveillance and increased military action and don’t feel like there’s a simple answer to this.
Part C:
4. I don’t really trust the wisdom of the crowd a whole lot. Many people are misinformed, close-minded, or very polarized. When people of like mind get together they become even more one way thinking and can become more extreme and therefore are unreliable to make sound decisions. There’s not a whole lot of people I would trust to make good/right decisions, definitely not the crowd.
5. I don’t think it’s impossible to have enlightened discourse in today’s age of soundbites and social media and fake news. It for sure makes it harder but in my opinion, it’s more people not wanting to or being too lazy to even have a go. Like in question 4, people these days tend to be more close minded and polarized and all the factors listed for this question just make those views worse. You can have a respectful and fruitful discussion you completely disagree with. People just don’t seem to want to try anymore, which is sad and gets us nowhere.
A1. The aim of the government should be to increase the happiness of the people. Happy people lead to a happier country. There will be less violence and therefore less home grown terrorism, and people will just get along better. It's a society that everyone wants to live in. Wealth needs to be distributed. The top 1% holds most of the wealth while there are millions of middle/ low income families. Wealth needs to be distributed in order for there to be more equality. Yes the wealthy will get mad if you try to take their money, but millions of people's lives would be greatly improved with even just a little more money. However, we have to stay realistic. We must separate what's just a dream and what can actually happen.
ReplyDeleteB2. More women and people of color should be included in more governing bodies at all levels of the government. All of America needs to be represented, not just the straight, white, Christian, male part. Many large demographics are underrepresented and their voices aren't heard. With more women and people of color, there will be more new ideas. There should be more women and people of color because it's just what should happen. Equality is important and is something we pride ourselves on a country, yet there's lots of inequality. We get more people to run by started the trend. If more women and people of color start going to office, they'll advocate and inspire more people to run.
C4. I don't trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decision most of the time. The crowd/ public is dumb. Many people are misinformed, father from “fake news” or what they might be exposed to on social media. Most people are selfish and have their own self interests at heart, rather than what's good for the country. They vote for the candidate that will help them the most. People have biases and don't take time to inform themselves. They don't take the time to look up their own facts and rely on what they hear from their friends and don't really take the time to form their own educated opinions. Look at trump, that was a terrible idea.
No I do not believe the aim of government should be to increase the general happiness of its people if it is at the cost of redistributing people's wealth. I believe more people would be upset if this happened, their money being taken from them would not make them happy at all. I also think a big factor is everyone’s happiness is different, money might not necessarily make someone happy. Certain people also have earned their money, others might do nothing but in this situation get money for that. Now talking about someone that works super hard and doesn’t get nearly as much as someone else, that is unfair and I can see how that is unsettling. Overall I do think the government should try to increase the happiness of its people, but I think there are many factors that go into that besides just money.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think women and people of color should be more included in governing bodies at all levels of government. It was said that “the official poverty rate in America in 2015 was 13.5%,” that is a significant part of our population; looking at who is in government positions, people in poverty are not in those positions. This has to do with people of color because for people in poverty It was also shown that “for Black Americans it was 24.1% and Latino Americans it was 21.4% and Asian Americans 11.4%” Those minorities are not being represented in government, and that is a big part of our population. Now the question of how do we get more people of color and women to run remains. If they know they can make a difference and that their opinions matter, I think that is the next step to get them to government. As Aristotle said, people in government should be based on "uncommon prudence and intelligence, not wealth.”
I think that trusting the wisdom of the crowd is the only way to go, you want the opinions of the people and not one person making decisions. Though this gets tough because sometimes the crowd can make the wrong choice. Other times I get lazy and don’t want to have to make decisions, so I let other people, even though I know that is not good, especially if everyone is thinking that way and the people left to make the decisions are not the people you should be trusting. Overall, I do trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decision because well, what else would I do.
The ultimate goal of the government should be to ensure that all citizens have an equal chance at happiness. Aristotle believed that “the truly democratic stateman must study how the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty.” He advocated for redistribution of wealth by collecting all the proceeds of the revenue into a fund and distribute this in lump sums. Aristotle also believed that the needy should be provided with enough capital to start a business. Like Aristotle, I believe that government intervention is necessary for a successful democracy. We cannot allow people to get incredibly wealthy, while others do not or barely make a living wage. In our society, if you are born privileged, it is a whole lot easier to make a reasonable wage, but if you are born into unfortunate circumstance, then it is very difficult to rise from poverty and hardship. I believe the government should tax the rich more and give more money/opportunities to the less fortunate.
ReplyDeleteWomen and people of color should absolutely be more included in governing bodies at all levels of government. If they are not, they will not have fair representation in the government, and they will become frustrated with the government. Ideally, 50% of government officials should be women and minority participation should be representative of the percentage of minorities in the state. Otherwise, there will be a lot of opposition to the government from these groups, which could cause outbreaks of violence and possibly even terrorism. If we ensure that all people have some form of representation in their government (including women and minorities), then the government will function better and cater to everyone’s needs – instead of just straight, white, Christian men.
Generally, I feel that I trust the wisdom of the crowd. There are a few exceptions, however. If I found myself at a Donald Trump rally, I would be terrified and would not agree with the majority of ideas beheld by the crowd. Oftentimes, I feel that people can get carried away by the mob mentality. Trump should not have been elected, but the masses felt that he should. Otherwise, I feel that everyone deserves to participate in their government (by voting). Aristotle believed that the best way to do this was to elect magistrates and to call them to account. And ultimately, I agree.
Part A
ReplyDelete1.
Our founding fathers believed that people were not educated enough on government policies to make reasonable decisions when voting. This is why the people get to pick educated politicians to represent them in office and ultimately vote for them. These politicians should aim to increase the general happiness of who they represent by voting in favor of the majority of their people. Communism is not the answer to solving the general happiness of American people. If people are unsatisfied with government they can let their representative know their concerns. People can also protest and also write a bill to give to their Congressmen to maybe become a law. Redistributing wealth would hurt more than half of America who has worked hard to earn their money. It is inevitable to have lower class citizens and there are many programs designed to help them, but communism is not one of them.
Part B
2.
In the article we read in class, it states that Aristotle strongly believed that only some people are smart enough to run the country. Instead of the smartest and most intelligent people running for office we commonly see the wealthiest people. This is because the cost of campaigning for office is very high and they are really the only ones who can afford it. According to fortune.com the average cost for running for president is 2.4 billion dollars. This narrows the list from all Americans, to the top 5%. Our president Donald Trump is proof that you really don’t need any qualifications for the job, just billions of dollars.
Women and people of color should be included in governing bodies at all levels of government, but they aren’t and it’s not their fault. Money is single handedly the reason why minorities are barely represented in government. If we want to get more people to run for office then we need to level the playing field. We could do this through decreasing the time you can campaign and set up funds for those who don’t have 2.4 billion dollars. Most importantly, society needs to be more aware of the disproportion of women and people of color in office and vote wisely to change that.
Part C
4.
I do trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decisions most of the time because when voting, people know what's best for them. Although we might not agree with everyone’s opinion there is a group of people who truly believe that Trump was the best presidential candidate, so they voted them into office. One could argue that only ignorant people voted for Trump because they didn’t have the materials and resources that would fully educate them on his actions. Besides the 2016 election, Americans have done a decent job at making the right decisions. Almost everyone watches or reads the news where they learn about current topics and the opposing viewpoints.
Jackie Sullivan
ReplyDeleteThe governing body of a society should be focused on the wellbeing of the many, but should also allow people to live their lives without too much interference. I don’t believe that it would be right for all of the people’s money to be pooled and distributed so that everyone receives the same amount. Whether we like it or not, our society is built upon greed. Why work hard for years to become a doctor or a lawyer when you could flip burgers and make the same amount? I do believe, however, that the wealthy should be taxed more than the poor. This is already in effect with tax brackets, but I feel that increases in tax should have an effect on the higher classes first before taxing the lower class. The government should be a “big brother” of sorts (not like the one from 1984), that can protect the people but also allow them to thrive and achieve their goals. Taking the monetary incentive out of the equation would cause our society to fail.
Both women and people of color are obviously lacking from government positions, however i'm not too sure how one would increase their numbers. Right now is a prime opportunity for minorities to come into said positions, as much of the country is focusing on the rights and lack of representation of these people. Social media is a good way to prefess the need for more people of color and women to enter the system and fill in positions that have been held by white males for centuries. Other than that, you can’t force anyone to run just to fill the gap, but you can make the issue known to people who are able to fill those positions.
The wisdom of the crowd, in my opinion, is USUALLY at least on the right track. As I mentioned before, the government should focus on the wellbeing of the majority of the people under it, and so they need to listen when citizens stand up and wants something from them. One person cannot possibly understand the needs and opinions of everyone else, and manage to properly implement them into society. That’s why our government has multiple parts that are full of people with differing ideals, and why we are able to vote. Although I do believe that the wisdom of the crowd can be followed most of the time, I also believe that you need to take opinions from all sides of an argument in order to craft a proper compromise.
Dominik
Hunter's Response (did it on Google docs forgot to turn it in)
ReplyDeletePart A
According to the Preamble of the Constitution, the purpose of the United States Federal Government is “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." It literally says in the constitution that one of the purposes of the government is to promote general welfare. The definition of welfare is “the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.” So yes, I think that the aim of the government should be to increase the general happiness of its people, even if it means redistributing a small amount of wealth from the top 1% to the bottom 99% of people. If you look at the six happiest countries, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, and the Netherlands, and then look at how evenly distributed the wealth in each of these countries is compared to the United States where the top 1% make more than the bottom 90%, you can see why there is an obvious correlation between equal wealth distribution and the happiness of an individual country.
Part B
Question 3: I think that America should probably change the ways it deals with terrorism, especially domestic terrorism by far-right nationalist groups which is responsible for most of the terrorism. We should focus more of our energy on deradicalizing neo-nazis and white supremacists. In terms of surveillance, I don’t mind as long as it doesn’t infringe on any of my rights.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df
Part C
Question 5: I trust the wisdom of the people to make the right decision some of the time. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, the majority of voters wanted Hillary Clinton (who I would have thought to be the wiser choice) to win. Donald Trump ended up winning but only through the electoral college, not the will of the people. In this instance, the wisdom of the people wasn’t enough. I believe that as long as most people are educated and have good morals, they will make the right decision most of the time.
Blog #78 - Aristotle
ReplyDeleteAristotle was a very bright man with a lot of very relevant and modern political views. Aristotle is essentially a liberal democratic socialist 2000 years before that name was coined and many of his ideas on government can still apply to today especially in the western world. I happen to like and agree with a lot of the things Aristotle taught because I also tend to lean left on the political spectrum.
1.) Personally I say yes, the aim of government should be to maintain the happiness of it's people, possibly through redistribution of money. Aristotle had this idea over 2,000 years ago, the idea that money was created to be exchanged, not to be an end game, and because of that redistribution of wealth would immensely help countries and communities. The poor could live at good standards and the happiness of our country would increase because of this fact alone. A modern day example of this would be taxing the rich more in an attempt to give more to the poor and take less from the middle class.
2.) America needs to change its system of electing 80% straight white males to government jobs. Government jobs such as seats in the house and senate are meant to represent our nation with equality and diversity and that is not what is currently happening. If Aristotle were to see our current ratios of white males in power he would be disgusted because he argued in order for a democracy to be successful it must include all groups of people. We must educate the American people of this to start electing more diverse individuals to represent them.
4.) Most of the time I do trust a well educated crowd to make the right decisions when presented with the right information. Often times this does not happen, a very simple example being our current president was elected and that's not a smart decision. 0n the contrary, Roy Moore was not elected by the people of Alabama which in my opinion was a great decision. Aristotle and I agree on the fact that educated people in a Democracy usually make good decisions.
Part A: I believe that, the government's aim should be to increase the overall happiness of the people. However, when it comes to redistributing wealth it gets tricky. While the redistribution could bring greater happiness for more people, it infringes on basic rights of our constitution. If this were an ideal society, I would have to agree that redistributing wealth is worth it. This would bring many people out of poverty and perhaps teach people to base happiness off things other than materials and possessions and put more emphasis on the mind. Our government’s aim should be to make the best life possible for its people and this would, hypothetically, achieve that. When it comes to reality, I think it is too great of a change and would not be accepted by the upper class.
ReplyDeletePart B: Yes, I believe that women and people of color should be more included in all levels of the government. I think it is very important to get the most diverse group possible, in order to properly represent everyone. With one majority, mainly white, christian, males, I can see how it would skew our government and favor certain policies over others. Like aristotle said, the best way to keep people from violence and rioting is to include them more in the government. I think it is currently difficult for women and people of color to be included in the government because the fact that they are the minority. People are used to having white males in office so it is accepted as the norm for government. Once we get the ball rolling and accept other minorities I think more minorities will continue to gain larger rolls in the government. I also think that a higher voter turnout from more minorities would increase the chances of minorities getting elected. If women and people of color knew they had a chance at winning, more would run.
Part C: I advocate for democracy, but in our current state, I would not trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decisions. People are often looking out for themselves more than the group as a whole. This creates divides between groups of people and constant clashing in beliefs. Also, much of ‘the crowd’ is uneducated or makes decisions based on trivial things, like grudges and not wanting the other side to win. This is seen today with our last presidential election. I think that the election was too much of a fight to put one person down that it ultimately was not a vote for who would best lead our country. I hope that with a more diverse group in government, the crowd could start accumulate their wisdom together as Aristotle believed was best, but until then it would be difficult for the crowd to gather their wisdom collectively.
The aim of the Government should be to increase the general happiness of its people, even when it means redistributing wealth. Aristotle believed we should avoid the small class of wealthy individuals, and instead, have everyone out of poverty. If we keep everyone the same or close to the same social class, people have no reason to be jealous of others earnings and wealth, meaning less conflicts inside the Government. The problem is with taking too much money from the rich for the poor. If you take too much, they’ll get mad and protest and upset the Government.
ReplyDeleteThe government should be more included in governing bodies, but I don’t think at all levels. The choice is between diversity and different views, or educated people. On one hand, adding minorities to the government would diversify the government, leading to more ideas and viewpoints from different people. But the risk is that you deny smarter people from running the country. There are people in the minorities who are smart, and worthy of being in the Government, and it’s their (The government) job to find these people to have an equal balance of diversity and education. I think the fact that 80% of people working in congress are men is something we should look at, and realize we don’t have any diversity with women. This percentage is too great, and could lead to people thinking that congress is sexist or doesn’t believe women can run our country. I’m not sure if this number would be different if Hillary was elected, but I think she could have had a big impression on it.
On the topic of terrorism and political violence. I think america is the police of the world. We get into many situations we shouldn’t. But I think the government is right in surveying our country with NSA and other ways to stop terrorism. Some people think it’s and infringement on our freedoms, but I see it as just another precaution. I’m not sure that if the Government didn’t survey America, that terrorism would be greater or the same as it is today, but i just think its a precaution and safety we should take. If you’re not part of it, you don't really have much to worry about.
I can’t trust the crowd. I see people constantly agree with public figures who don’t know what they’re talking about, just because they’re famous. I think in ur age of technology, we’re much less free thinking than we were before. We tend to bandwagon on many things. Things we should each have our unique opinion on. On the topic of discourse, if you’re properly educated in the topic, by all means, talk to me about it. But if you’re coming into the argument or talk with 5 facts you’ve found on a blog, please leave.
Robbie
I like Aristotle's, ideas on democracy. In fact, I believe that all civilizations should base their society and government on his ideologies. Despite Aristotle's views on women and slavery, for the most part, he believed that the status of a person did not matter when it came to making sure they were happy. While I respect this ideology, what triggers me is the happy bit. Before the government makes sure people are happy, Americans have to be surviving. To me, this means access to food, CLEAN water, public housing, healthcare, public education, and public transportation. Now, if this does not exceed Aristotle's idea of happiness then the government should focus on making its citizens happy. Redistributing people's wealth, however, does not sound appealing to me. Everyone should not expect to be paid the same amount of money regardless of their job. People who make more should generally be taxed more, but they should not be expected to earn as much as someone who does not work as hard as them. Societies that practice this have low citizens moral and are unhappy.
ReplyDeleteWoman and people of color should most definitely be able to govern and be included in politics. People in power, despite how hard they may try not to, will subsequently make laws and right bills that benefit their own demographic. People in power also represent their country. In America, it seems completely awkward that we are being represented by people of the same demographic given our diversity. If woman and more people of color are put in office, the needs of woman and people of color will be met. Simple. The issue is getting woman and people of color in office. Viola Davis says it best in her acceptance speech of a Primetime Emmy for Best Leading Actress in a Dramatic Series for her role in How to Get Away with Murder. The first black woman to win the award-ever, during her acceptance speech she not only quotes Harriet Tubman but talks about how woman of color are separated from success because of the lack of opportunity. That being said, America has to find a way to deliver better opportunities to woman and people of color. Preferable in the form of education. Viola Davis’s acceptance speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXcT213XYlA
(5) I think I have gotten well at figuring out what I am going to receive from certain News feeds. From Fox, I will get conservative views and republican support-always. From Huffing Post, however, is an in-your-face liberal site. Even though my knowledge is of-par, I find myself questioning what I believe to be true from other sites. I fix this problem by constantly checking news sources during the week that have opposing views. I figured that somewhere in between the two, the truth about what’s going on in the world will be revealed. Fake news and definitely be dodged, it just takes time to figure out what to believe and where to believe it.
Derrick Lockhart