34698376038th time trying to get this posted

Rebellion is an exercise of one’s
position as a citizen. To become a citizen is to accept the laws of society and
to recognize self and others as human. According to Camus it is important to
rebel because it is the only sphere in which one person can unite with another.
A true rebels goal is to defend humanity. Therefore if one man believes that it
is wrong to own another person and shares his idea with another, their
rebellion against slavery is the only way that they connect. In that situation
it is empathy that urges the non-oppressed to rebel on behalf of those who are oppressed.
One does not become a rebel when they realize their right to be free and in
doing so, recognizes the right for every individual to have freedom, but when
their recognition of their right becomes action in order to protect their right.
For Camus, if the individual recognizes something as sacred or higher, then the
individual has no ability to rebel because they unconditionally accept the
world as it is. In contrast to Camus, Arendt shows that for productive rebellion
(Civil Disobedience) to happen, one must recognize the way things are and
follow by the laws in society. By accepting society as it is, they can have a
more effective change on the part that they wish to see change.
Government’s responsibility to the individual
in society is to create a place such as the marketplace of ideas. It is necessary
to have rebellion because similarly to the individual, a government can further
explore its structure, and self, through the interaction with the group of
rebels. Rebellion is a form of societal self recognition.
Labels: RED HEADS AND CAROLINE

For over the break

Please read Marx, from Capital: A Critique of Political Economy for Tuesday and Wednesday (January 3rd and 4th). Think about how this connects to what we've been talking about with Marx in relationship to the public and the private from the Jewish Question.

For Monday, January 9th please read Martin Luther King, Jr. "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Think about King as an extension of the tradition of rebellion as an expression of citizenship begun with Thoreau, Arendt, and Camus.

Somehow, someway, I will both return your papers from forever ago. I will also construct a new blog posting.

(ps -- Redheads + Caroline, no blog post about rebellion? Explain? Thank you.)

Every citizen has a duty to work to better both himself, and the society in which he lives. It is the responsibility of the citizens of a State to rebel, so that the State is allowed to improve itself. The ultimate goal of any society is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The people need voice their opinions in order to facilitate the evolution of their State to a better version of itself. While the marketplace of ideas, the so-called public sphere, offer catalysts for opinions to be heard, the voice of the majority will always overshadow the thoughts of the minority.

In order for the minority to do its duty to the rest of society, it must rebel in order for its voice to be heard. When an unjust law is passed, especially one that denies the rights of a minority, many people cannot be bothered to respond. If it only affects the rights of a minority, the majority will not bother to try and stop the law. This law hinders the progress of Society, placing a barricade on the path to enlightenment. It is the responsibility of the minority to rebel, because, "the establishment of civil disobedience... might be the best possible remedy for this ultimate failure of judicial review," (Arendt 101)

Rebellion also sparks, within the rebels themselves, a greater sense of morality. The rebel becomes part of something greater than himself, throwing himself to a cause which he deems worthy of his entire person. The rebel simultaneously gains a understanding of himself, as well as understanding of his connection to other men. The slave who rebels against his chains begins to realize, "the part of himself that he wanted to be respected ... [is placed] above everything else and ... it becomes for him the supreme good." (Camus 156) This new self awareness is something the ideal state would foster in its citizens. When a man rebels, he gains this awareness and spreads it throughout the State. He also gains a community of fellow rebels, and an understanding that he is connected to fellow citizens. After the rebellion, the self awareness and community remains, leaving the State better off.

Once the government becomes aware of a rebellion, it should begin to look closely at the roots of this disruption. Much as the citizen has a duty to his government, the reverse is also true. If the people are restless, and are willing to rebel, the government should attempt to ascertain the cause of this rebellion. The government is there to protect its people, so when the people are unhappy, the government should work to mitigate the problem, thus helping both itself and its citizens.

Rebellion

Rebellion has proven itself to be the deciding factor in the histories of many of the world’s governments, being the last ditch effort of the citizen to change the machinations of their society. Whether the government likes it or not, the right to rebellion is a right of the people, and one that cannot be taken away no matter the amount of oppression. The only way for a citizen to rebel is for them to “refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually [Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, pg 15].” Only through the violation of one’s social contract with their government and the removal of themselves from it can they actively take steps to harm the State without the act becoming a self-destructive movement. The method of rebellion is unimportant, because the “Reasons for rebellion do seem to change,
in fact, with periods and civilizations [Camus, The Rebel, pg 158].” The only thing of any importance is the idea
that the rebels know that they are no longer part of the State, and will from
then on never be allowed to be part of that particular State again.

The government, on the other hand, still needs to respond to the rebellion, and the
obvious response is resistance. It would not behoove the State to submit to the rebellion’s demands, as that would simply bolster them, giving the rebels a victory over the government. My question is that if a government’s duty is to provide a stable platform for their subjects, what should their stance then
be, since submission will make them weak, and retaliation will vilify them?

Also:

If Sir Ken Robinson is right, than we really should do more dancing:

http://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_proposal.html

But if you wanted to watch the video from Friday again:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Or if you wanted to see his popular follow-up:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

But probably, you should just watch the one with dancing.....

And read Arendt for Monday.

To think about:

Hannah Arendt wrote this in 1954:

"Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.”

syllabus until winter break (including blog post assignment)

Wednesday, 11/30 -- Read Thoreau

Friday, 12/2 -- Continued discussion of Thoreau

Monday, 12/5 -- Read Arendt

Tuesday, 12/6 -- Continued discussion of Arendt

Wednesday, 12/7 -- Read Camus

Friday, 12/9 -- Continued discussion of Camus

Monday, 12/12 -- Read Marx "On the Jewish Question"
Tuesday, 12/13 -- small group discussions, case study preparation

Wednesday, 12/14 -- Continued discussion of Marx

Next blog post:

Written and commented on for Friday 12/9:

How is rebellion a form of citizenship? In what ways should a citizen rebel against the government? In what ways should a government respond to a rebellion? Cite 2 of Thoreau, Arendt, or Camus in your response.

The best form of government is a form where the people are held in respect with the government and the government successfully manages the tyranny of the majority against the individual’s needs.

THESIS

The perfect society is an impossible dream. Any system of government that puts men in charge of one another will be as fallible as the people who created it. Even the most well planned State will eventually crumble.

Thesis (ish)

A sustainable form of government must allow its citizens the highest form of freedom: the freedom to be moral. The government must reflect a collective idea of morality, defined by an overlapping consensus of the citizens; the role of government becomes solely to provide physical security to the citizens by laws and enforcement based on the definition of morality that comes into existence through discussion in the public sphere.

Thesis

For a government to avoid the tyrant, that government must legislate morality and educate every individual so that each person may make contributions to the marketplace of ideas.

Kyle's Thesis

In order for an individual to serve the ideal role in society, the government must instill a sense of responsibility and duty to become enlightened by the use of positive liberties so that each individual is able to contribute positively to the market place of ideas and develop their sense of morality.

Thesis (Team Rocket)

In order for a political society to function and improve, every citizen must fulfill their duty and contribute to the "marketplace of ideas."

Thesis

The purpose of the individual is sacrifice for the creation and maintenance of the state, while the state's purpose is to provide order and longevity to itself using a balanced amount of lies and manipulation to ensure the individual's complacency, while avoiding their revolutionary wrath.

Redheads & Caroline

Tyranny of the majority can be minimized, although not eradicated, through the sublation of citizens that occurs in the marketplace of ideas.

Thesis?

Sorry, Team Rocket. I included a short outline so that my thesis makes more sense. Feel free to comment on the thesis without reading the outline.

Since any social structure leads to discontent and rebellion, the most functional power structure is autonomy, a state of nature.

-Societies created by greed. When the founding principle is greed, upheaval is created by excess desire.

-In order to function, government must satisfy each individual, because without its inhabitant's contentment, the inhabitants have no reason to preserve the society. There is no way to keep everyone happy, though, because so many people have different opinions and desires. There is no possible categorical imperative that can be achieved through the public sphere because there will always be contrasting opinions. Therefore...

-Society fosters discontent and rebellion, government must then combat or prevent the rebellion. Instead of existing for the security of the people, government exists to protect itself and those who agree with its legislations. If people enter a society to protect their security, and then are themselves threatened by the same government, nothing is achieved.

-In a state of nature, men would govern themselves out of necessity, avoiding a state of war and/or a corrupted government. Men might be individually less secure, but as a whole, self-government based on necessity would result in less destruction.

Team Rocket!!!

Government's duty is to protect us and make us feel secure, so that we can contribute our ideas to the "public sphere" and form the perfect state.

Redheads and Caroline

Hey guys: I put my outline too, because I don't feel like I worded my thesis the best ever, so with the outline you can kind of see where I'm coming from with my second sentence.

A society should form a government that is run by the people, and modified through ongoing discussion. Laws should not be overbearing, but citizens have a duty to follow the laws that do exist.

Rousseau—social contract, people form a collective

Rawls—The society must be based upon an agreed upon constitution, and we need to all agree that we can’t impose our world-view onto others.

Mill—government should be changed through a marketplace of ideas, an ongoing conversation

Hegel—the marketplace of ideas works by people sublating and understanding each other

Kant—when people have more responsibility for themselves and their government, they will become more enlightened and wiser

Kant—we must obey laws even if we don’t like them, because categorically we can’t say that everyone should disobey the government

Rousseau—he agrees, disobeying should not be an option

Plato—in Crito he agrees, we must deal with what our society gives us.

thesis statement

In order to strive for enlightenment, citizens must contribute to the marketplace of ideas and the government must ensure that those contributions are positive and progress society closer to the universal morality.

Hegel

If the world exists as a means for G-d to discover his self-awareness, there is ultimately a telos, an end, to this process. The individual is a small piece of a broad process-in Hegel’s metaphysics; individual citizens become the cogs in the larger machine of the history of the world, which is the process of G-d’s self-actualization. Each society is a moment in G-d becoming conscious of himself that occurs through a set of processes in time. Societies are determined by where they exist in history, and the individual exists within a society that is at a point on the trajectory towards G-d’s self-actualization and so therefore it is the society that creates the identity of the individual. The individual as a citizen in society becomes part of a moment in the unfolding of the history of the world. The individual is dictated by society at this moment in time, that is, where the individual exists in the evolution of the history of world. Individuals depend on the recognition of others to identify themselves. The closer each individual gets to gaining self-consciousness through sublation with others, the closer the individual gets to becoming a moral being. Society moves closer to becoming to a state built on morality as opposed to necessity, or composed of individuals that have reached this higher level of self-consciousness, and this progress reflects the process of G-d’s self-awareness on the trajectory towards the telos. This progress occurs when society transitions into a moral state, and this happens when each individual citizen has a sense of morality, which they gain from self-consciousness and recognition from others. The freedom of the individual must guide him/her to do what G-d wants him/her to do, so it cannot be a pathological freedom, individuals must be moral, and have reasons for their actions. As the motive behind the actions of the individual moves from necessity to consciousness, freedom of action becomes enslavement to desire. In Hegel, the individual must apply reason to freedom in order to not be uncontrollably and therefore pathologically free; therein forms the morality of the individual, and by extension, society. By this reasoning the greatest freedom that the individual has is to see that which he/she should do and do it. This resembles Plato’s Republic where one is free to do one’s duty, but that is the greatest freedom one can have. It becomes the role of the individual to find this morality and apply it to the reasons for his/her actions and subsequently create a more moral society, leading to progression on the trajectory of the self-actualization of G-d. The self-actualization of the individual then becomes that of G-d.

Team????

We are part of the process that God is going through to obtain self-consciousness. He can’t achieve self-consciousness until he experiences sublation, which requires other people. True sublation occurs when people are mutually involved in a relationship, and they are risking their lives for one another. Everything the individual, as a citizen, does, is all a part of Gods process but we aren’t slaves to him because we are all morale and have a reason for doing the things we do. We are citizens because of history, and all history is the history of God.
I have a few questions for you guys: If we are just here as a part of God’s process of finding himself, what happens when he discovers himself? Does the world come to an end, or is his self-consciousness unobtainable because we change so frequently? What do we gain from our relationship with God? Also, isn’t God supposed to be omniscient? How is he aware of himself enough to create us?

If the state is god working himself out through self actualization, then the individual as a citizen is a part of the state is part of god's self actualization. So any action by the citizen should be a motion of the state and therefore representative of God's self actualization. This means that we essentially give god himself, because according to Hegel we form ourselves from others perception of us, and this means that god is getting himself from us and what we believe about him. Hegel runs on the idea here that the world was created by god and that the world was his way of defining himself, so in his idea of us we all believe in this so we all try to act in a way that would be an accurate portrayal of God as he believed in him.

Next blog post!

If the state is a part of God's working out of himself through self-actualization, what does that say about the individual as citizen at any particular moment in time?

Use Hegel.

Next paper!

For your next paper, please re-address the seminal questions of the class.

You must cite Plato, Kant, Hegel, and at least one other thinker (Freud, Rawls, Locke, Rousseau) in creating your argument.

5 pages. In folders. On Elise's desk or in mailbox on Monday morning, November 21st.

The questions:

How do structures of power relate to the individual and his or her role in society? What does a study of the link between tyranny and democracy tell us about the proper distribution of social power? How should government balance the needs of the individual and the social?

Class on Monday (10/24) -- video

In class on Monday (10/24) we will reference or watch the following:

Justice (taught by Michael Sandel) is a class at Harvard (Moral Reasoning 022) that might be more popular than any other. You can watch all of Mike's classes online, but in class on Monday we will look only at a part of Episode #1. In class we begin at minute 26. You may want to watch the whole thing:

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch

Sandel was on Colbert this past summer. This is simple and a little funny:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/392600/july-20-2011/michael-sandel

Freedom of the Press (redheads+Caroline)

Given that Mill’s central thesis is the “harm principle”, that everyone should be free to do what they will as long as it does not harm others, freedom of the press naturally follows. An article in the newspaper, no matter how provocative, will likely not cause harm by itself. Some people may be offended, yes, but according to Mill “there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended by his holding it; no more than between the desire of the thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep” (On Liberty, 84). I believe, however, that he would argue that things that cause direct harm, state secrets for example, should be prohibited from being published.
Mill measured society not by well-being, but by freedom. Any restriction of free speech, other than preventing serious harm, was tyrannical—no matter how controversial the opinion. As he powerfully said, “if all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind” (On Liberty, 20). Therefore, freedom of the press is absolutely essential to having a just and functional society.
Mill also believed strongly in education and the free flow of information. He saw each person’s goal as moving toward truth and correct knowledge. A free press can inform, get people to think, and present opinions in a knowledgeable manner, all of which Mill greatly desired. In his view, to create a good and knowledgeable society, “human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter” (On Liberty, 76). The press can play a large part in that.

Freedom of Speech (Go Team Rocket)

Assuming that “we have the right to choose the society most acceptable to us” (Mill, 78) and that individuals have the ability to leave a society when the society no longer benefits them, it is in a government's best interest to allow citizens the maximum amount of freedom possible while still maintaining a functioning society. It seems unlikely that any person would willingly enter into Plato's ideal city in which the rulers assign each individual a duty or even willingly enter into Locke's comparatively liberal monarchy, when he has the option to live in a society, like Mill's, based around allowing each person complete liberty. A community that allows each person to do whatever he or she wants is, in theory, the most enticing one to join and sustain; however, like all utopias we have studied, there are certainly potential downfalls. The possession of too much liberty seems to be a possible danger, but Mill proposes what seems to me like the most promising society yet. Despite its liberal nature, Mill's society finds a good balance of liberty and legislative control.

Mill allows each individual complete liberty over his actions, beliefs, and speech. This makes the society enticing, for each person is allowed to express himself in the ways that he chooses to do so. Mill stresses, though, that it is each individual's duty not to infringe on another person's liberty. People only deserve “moral reprobation when they involve a breach of duty to others” (Mill, 79). In terms of free speech laws, this rule is important for maintaining a well-functioning society. The problem with a society that allows free speech, such as America, is that oftentimes the speaker's audience is unwilling and beliefs are being shoved down people's throats. In Mill's society, this sort of evangelical freedom of speech would be discouraged, because it would infringe on other people's freedom of belief and thought. In order for people to be content in a society and therefore have incentive to invest in the society, freedom of speech must be allowed as long as the audience is a willing audience.

freedom of speech

In Mill’s form of a negative government, society and the individual should each control that which most rightly pertains to it, and for this system to peacefully and satisfactorily function individuals must be granted the right of free speech so as to communicate with society as a whole. Free speech, including the ability to voice our personal choices and preferences enriches the perspective of society and heightens a government’s ability to best serve its citizens. The social contract is not a choice, we are supposedly born into it and we are denied the liberty of choice for whether or not we wish to join. In a government founded on negative liberty citizens are not forced to do anything especially against their will, they are only asked to refrain from encroaching on others liberties. Free speech is a liberty that is vital to the functioning of society because it is a means of participation that helps form the best government for everyone and does not impinge on the liberties of others. Free speech is not only beneficial to a government; it also promotes strength in individuals. Individuals who celebrate their own voice are committing to take control of their destiny and thus live a healthy and productive life. When freedom of expression encroaches on the safety or liberties of others a line should be drawn. Every opinion should be heard for the benefit of society but ideas should be expressed appropriately. If citizens are threatened then their liberties have been assaulted and free expression has gone too far. If an expression goes against the morals accepted by society that expression must be quelled so everyone’s rights are equal. Everyone is allowed a voice no matter whom they are speaking for and no ones voice counts for more based on age, wealth, political stature, race or religion.

Paper Topic

Is the purpose of government simply the negative liberty that Mill describes, or should government exist to support a more positive construction of our liberties and rights?

You must cite at least three of: Plato, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Kant

Length: 3-5 pages (double spaced)

Due: Monday, October 24th, in class, in your folders

Next Blog Post

Why is freedom of speech (press/religion/etc..) important to a well functioning society and what are the necessary limits that must be placed on this expression?

Please address Mill in your response.

Social Contract

A little late, but her is the link to a more readable version of Social Contract.  The whole thing.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RouSoci.html

Elizabeth Warren-- America's Social Contract

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

I thought this video was really relevant-- it shows the fundamental debate that's going on in our country about how extensive our social contract should be. The lady speaking in the video is Elizabeth Warren, a former Harvard professor who has become the main advocate for the middle class in our financial system. She was going to direct the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but couldn't get confirmed by the Republicans in Congress, so she is now running for Senate in Massachusetts.

Plato vs Rousseau

Plato liked the idea of having guardians that ruled over society. He wanted there to be one specialized group in charge of defending the state and one even more exclusive group that would be in charge of ruling. The rulers were suppose to have a tendency to think like a philosopher because philosophers are supposed to be the finest at evaluating what is true and best. It is a good idea to have rulers that can lead the citizens in the correct direction and be able to steer them toward what is true and best. This is a good concept to play with when considering a ruler but guardians could not fulfill this duty because they are separated from society so early that they do not know what it is like to be part of the commonwealth. And if guardians do not know what it is like to be a citizen how can they know what is best for the society or what is the correct path for each individual citizen to take. Plato had to right idea when thinking about what important characteristics a leader should have but the Guardians he created were flawed.
Rousseau believes in people having a social contract with the government instead of selling themselves or giving up liberty in order to become the subject to a king. The social contract is a commitment each individual makes before entering the society. Individuals choose to agree to a social contract when they “have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state” (Rousseau, 173). The social contract is a commitment that each individual makes to the community and a promise they must keep to every other member of that society if they want to continue to be part of it. It is the same pledge for everyone and it helps make everyone equal and feel like they still have freedom instead of being dominated by a figure like the guardians. The social contract makes the community not a group of different individuals with different wills but one being with one will. The social contract seems like a better way than the guardians to insure individuals’ happiness in the society.

Guardians vs Social Contract

Plato's concept of the guardians who decide the structure and operation of a given society was, while appealing, not entirely plausible. The idea of a group of philosophers sitting atop some mountain, isolated from the society they were governing, was somewhat preposterous, since they would have had no way of knowing what the best course of action was for the common man. the entire idea of the guardians hinges upon the idea that there is some higher truth that, no matter what your disposition, you will accept and allow it to rule your life.

The idea of a social contract starts with the lockean "state of Nature," where each person does what the wish, when they wish, despite what it may do to other human beings. the only way to escape this is to enter a social contract, which "produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked [Rousseau, 177]." A social contract is meant to elevate people out of the state of nature by giving them laws and limitations in exchange for the protection they receive from the integration into a collective. The power of a social contract lies in its formation, when "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole [Rousseau, 175]." With each member of the contract placing their own liberties and power into the society, they will do everything in their power to keep the society afloat, so as to protect their investment. This investment ensures loyalty to the state, since those who are truly enveloped in the contract will, under no circumstances act against it, lest they damage the part of themselves that they placed in it. Thus the legitimacy of the social contract theory stems from the fact that, for the most part, human beings are not self-destructive, and the state is given value from what people have sacrificed to create it.

Legitimacy of Government

Plato’s ideal government is given its legitimacy by having leaders who are “better” than the rest of the citizens. These Guardians are said to be fundamentally superior to the other citizens both because of their innate characteristics and because of their specialized training for being a ruler. They will be chosen to rule if they “in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against her interests” (Plato 412 a). They have the right and obligation to rule justly over the other citizens. None of the other citizens should have any reason to complain because these Guardian Kings, or Philosopher Kings, should be much better rulers than any of the other citizens would be.

In Locke and Rousseau’s versions of political theory, however, the state has power because it is made by and for the people, and therefore the people want to keep it in power. They enter into a contract with the government to support it and obey its laws in return for protection and security. Without government or society, people live in what Locke calls the “state of Nature.” Although they have more freedom in the state of Nature, they do not have any security and there is no all-encompassing law that is the same for everyone. There is no power greater than individuals, so there is no protection from unjust individuals or actions. If any individual wants to steal or murder, there is nothing stopping him from doing so.

Out of this situation, people form communities with more defined laws to “preserve his [the individual’s] property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men” (87). The Social Contract is the agreement by the citizens to obey the rules of the state as long as they are just. Since these laws are made for the good of the citizens, the citizens support it and the government is given legitimacy.

Third Assignment

(250-500 words)
(for Tuesday... with comments!)

As we shift from Plato to Locke & Rousseau, how does the social contract replace the Guardians as the legitimizing form of state power?

TEAM ROCKET'S POST (de Tocqueville)

Alexis de Tocqueville would be in complete agreement with Alex Miller's statement. De Tocqueville notes that American Democracy is already legislatively unstable (De Tocqueville, 248), and that that instability will only increase as the majority gains power. He reason is that "American laws have a shorter duration than those of any other country" because democracies are continually bringing "new men [and women] into power" (250). Were this amendment to be actually added to the North Carolina Constitution, the majority that is in power when it passes will be replaced in a few years. De Tocqueville might argue that such a controversial amendment would likely be removed by a new majority, so why go to the bother of adding it to the Constitution?

Another one of de Tocqueville's primary quibbles with the American government is that the majority "has the right to do everything", a right he finds "impious and detestable" (250). He, like Miller, believes that the majority should have no right to make decisions that will directly effect the minority. Also, because "the judges in certain states are elected by the majority" (252), even if the minority appealed to court, it would still not be given an unbiased trial. What is the point of even going through the process of amending the Constitution if the majority controls the outcome? de Tocquevilla might ask.

The passing of this amendment would only further de Tocqueville's opinion that the majority has complete control of the government. He also believes that, "If ever freedom is lost in America [it] will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force" (260). While De Tocqueville may not necessarily say that those gay couples, who want to receive the same legal rights as married man and woman, will physically attack the "majority" in North Carolina, tensions would still rise to the point of disunion.

Alexis De Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville found that America’s most dominant traits were the longing for individuality and our fixation on equality. From our idea of equality Tocqueville was concerned that we as a nation would become too individual of one another, opening the door for the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority removes the voice from minorities. Revoking that voice ruins the main goal that the fathers of our country strived for. That is exactly what has happened this week. De Tocqueville would say that the bill is proof of the beginning of the reality and harshness of the majority as a tyrant. “As the majority is the only power whom it is important to please, all its projects are taken up with great ardor; but as soon as its attention is turned elsewhere, all these efforts cease…” Though the decision to remove basic rights of a group are in the beginning stages of being taken away, in the blink of an eye, that could all change.

The back and forth of the democracy in America is what keeps the nation flowing as it does. The politicians are voted for based on the issues that they address, if elected, they will most likely be replaced because the majority changed its mind. The majority is consistently changing its mind; therefore it changes its leaders. Majority is free to travel down the road as it wishes, while minority (often much more stable) is unheard and unable to get out of the driveway. Alexis though that the ruling of popular will would not last in America for very long, that we as a nation would not exist in a perfect, or near perfect form of democracy far into the future. Though it has been longer than he expected, his prediction seems quite accurate. “I believe that freedom is in danger when that power finds no obstacle that can restrain its course and give it time to moderate itself.” The passing of this bill would mark the lack of an obstacle in the path of tyranny for America. De Tocqueville would mark this day as the day that our government has fallen from its roots.

Alexis de Tocqueville would roll over in his grave if he knew about the bill that North Carolina is about to pass. De Tocqueville was concerned that a majority would rule the country, making laws based on personal opinions and passions instead of reason. He believed that democracy was fickle, saying that our government has been built in a way that encourages, "democratic instability and allows the changing wishes of democracy to be applied to the most important matters"(Tocqueville 249). Members of the House and the Senate are changed out every few years, bringing in new opinions and ideals. A bill that would be passed by congress today might be rejected in six years time.

De Tocqueville might also argue that the majority, if it were to vote against this bill, would be smothering the voice of the very minority whose rights are at stake. In our current democracy, the opinions of the minority are considered null and void, unless that minority is near in size to the majority. Then a case for compromise might be made, but this happens very rarely. Alexis was aware that the majority also has the unique ability to influence public opinion, saying, "No monarch is so absolute that he can hold all the forces of society in his hands and overcome all resistance as a majority invested with the right to make the laws and to execute them, can do" (De Tocqueville 255).

Even if the majority has made a poor decision, it would be impossible to oppose it. Anyone who speaks out publicly against the majority's decision will be the subject of ridicule. His opinions will be made worthless and his supporters will become scarce. This brave man, “will remain among men but ... lose [his] rights to count as one,” (De Tocqueville 256). De Tocqueville would be disgusted that the majority today holds absolute power to grant or deny rights to the gay community. The majority is nothing more than a collective tyrant. A solitary tyrant would be much easier to deal with, because thousands of people with the same beliefs wield much more power than a single man. It’s relatively easy to remove a tyrant; it is nearly impossible to oppose the will of the majority.

Second Assignment

On Monday, 9/12, the North Carolina House passed a bill that would amend the state constitution to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. (Fun fact: NC is currently the only state in the southeast that does not have said amendment to our constitution.) This bill will need to pass the House again (by 3/5 vote or more) and then pass the NC State Senate (by a 3/5 vote or more) in order to be put on the May 2012 primary ballot as an initiative for the people.

In response to this vote, Alex Miller, the director of Equality NC, said: "You do not put the rights of a minority group up for a majority vote."

The question: How would Alexis de Tocqueville respond to Miller? Be sure to cite de Tocqueville's words in your response.

Read this!

Today's New York Times raises questions of Big Brother and our 4th Amendment rights. In case you have forgotten, the 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html?_r=1&hpw

The tyrant Plato speaks of, is law-breaking, unsatisfied, and has many erotic desires. “A man becomes tyrannical either by nature or by practicing or both, he has become drunken, erotic, and melancholic” (573c). He is utterly dependent on external things, and therefore full of anxiety. “The tyrannic nature never has a taste of freedom or true friendship” (576a). Tyrants have a sense of radical incompleteness and a longing for wholeness, which is uncovered in their passion and single-mindedness. A tyrant is a real slave, and a sycophant to the most useless man. He is constantly full of apprehension throughout his life time, as well as hostility and extreme eroticism. He is constantly worrisome of his citizens turning against him, and preventing him from attaining his goals and desires.
A tyrant’s life is full of voracious desires and being trapped in an unrealistic life. They tend to not achieve their goals, and therefore do all they can to continue their longing, become hated, and do terrible deeds to seem like they are fighting for some accomplishment. “And therefore, the tyrannic soul is necessarily poverty ridden and insatiable” (578a-b). His reason is non-existent to the choices he makes because he is constantly yearning for something and is never satisfied. The tyrant is the unhappiest of all men, precisely because he is struggling to attain the scarce goods that generally make a man happy.

plato

Plato’s tyrant is a man who is moves towards tyranny out of democracy, and does it of his own accord because he needs to fulfill his desires. When he becomes like this, he is a man wholly controlled by his own desires and he does whatever is necessary in order to keep up this lifestyle that he has created for himself. He is trapped because in this state, because he is trapped by his need for the pleasure that he gets from this way of living. The tyrant is connected to reason and passion, but because of the way that his world revolves around him constantly, he has no basis for knowing what is reasonable and what is not reasonable because he can’t base it off of others. Whatever he desires is reason in the tyranny. He is connected to passion, though, because as a political tyrant, he is driven by his passions and desires. In fact, he is controlled by them to the point where he breaks the bond of mutual love that is the reason that all government forms in the first place. This means that because he breaks the bond and is using his power for his own personal gain, then the people are justified in exacting punishment, and this severely restricts his movements. He is always afraid that he will be killed by one of his people or removed from power and therefore unable to get the desires he is reliant on. So both of these factors make up the components of a tyrant, but both are relative to what the tyrant thinks.

First Assignment

By Friday, please have one person in your group write a 250-400 word response to the following question. The rest of the group needs to read the response carefully and (through comments to the original post) continue the conversation by posing questions, challenges, affirmations, and other ideas.

First (and everyone should do this part): Please look carefully at the following two passages from The Republic:
Book IX (571 - 592)
Book IV (434 - 445)

Second (and only one person from each group should do this part): Answer the following question:
Who is Plato's tyrant? How is the tyrant connected to the ideas of reason and passion?

(Please cite Plato in your response. Remember to cite by number and letter.)

Small Groups

Caroline, Emily, Hannah, Maggie

Taylor, Leah, Pippin, Jessye

Kyle, Elana, Ali, Anna

Senior Seminar

Welcome to Senior Seminar 2011-2012