As many people have mentioned, this blog encompasses many topics. For this reason, I have divided them up for your viewing pleasure.

Rant 1: Groups—the root of all evil?
In my experience, individuals are surprisingly kind-hearted and generous. If you think back to times when people have come to your aid—maybe to jump your car batteries, maybe to help pick up spilled groceries—it usually involves unrelated people and a random act of kindness. The notion of “Pay it Forward” calls for individuals, not communities, to do good deeds.

On the other hand, picture the destructiveness of groups of people—gangs, mobs, violent protestors, etc. “Hive thinking” severely distorts the naturally benevolent nature of human beings. It works something like this: a mob might be composed of everyday, average Joes, but because of a few bad seeds, the entire structure of the mob turns to malicious purposes, simply because each of the formerly benign individuals is afraid of what his/her neighbors will do to him/her if he/she speaks up. Little do they realize that most people feel the same way as they do, but are just too afraid to speak up. People even treat crimes and evils done by a group differently than from an individual. Feel free to quote me on this: If a man kills ten people, he is called mentally unstable; if a mob kills ten people, it is called a riot; if a government kills ten people, it is called civilian casualties. You might have even felt this on a small scale when with a group of friends or others. You might have decided to “go with the flow” and not voiced your opinions on a certain subject because you felt the group would somehow disapprove.

You might think that this sounds slightly undemocratic, and you might be right. Still, I think democracy is the best available form of government because a) the people tend to control the government not as a mob, but as individuals voting and b) like James Madison said, it helps curb dangerous individuals or factions from taking power. But if the ‘mob” is so dangerous, how is our democracy so successful?

Rant 2: Fear
Well, it’s because of fear. War is peace, no? If democracy is based on consent of the governed, then the government gets its consent through fear. Yes, I know this is a very cynical view, but bear with me here. You might remember from 1984 the questions that plagued Winston about whether or not the Brotherhood or even the wars against Oceania and Eastasia even exist, or if they are just used as scapegoats by the government to exert more control on the people. Even Goldstein mentions that the wars are essentially used by the respective countries to keep their ignorant masses perpetually ignorant to the outside world.

This theme does not exist simply in fiction. I find it no surprise that almost as soon as the United States became actively involved in foreign politics, we were overrun with fears of Nazism. And I find it no surprise that literally as soon as Nazism fell, we became overwhelmed with fears of Communism. Continuing the trend, relatively soon after Communism fell, we became obsessed with the fear of terrorism. Michael Crichton wrote in “State of Fear” that the government needs fear to remind the people that they need government to survive.

So why don’t dictatorships and monarchies work as well as democracies? On the Daily Show a few days ago, writer Ian Bremmer came on to explain his “J Curve” theory of government, which states that both oppressive and open governments can seem successful, but the open governments are on the high peak of the J while the oppressive ones are on the low peak.

Rant 3: Iraq
I just wanted to say some things that came to my mind about Iraq. Mr. Bremmer mentioned that the “J Curve” is the reason why Iraq is in a period of widespread instability; in order to go from the oppressive end of the J to the “free” end of the J, a country must pass through the low point of it.

I also got to thinking about the revolutionary cycle we talked about last year in Ms. Eulau’s class, and how many people hypothesized that the reason Iraq is in such chaos is because we gave them a forced revolution; a revolution where they skipped the whole “united” phases and went directly to the “kill everyone in sight” phase. I decided that the same is true for the Polybius cycle of government—we just skipped the “increasing liberty” stage and went directly to the “increasing anarchy” one.

Rant 4: Stoplights
OK, not much of a rant here. I just wanted to share this video that shows we don’t even need stoplights, much less any traffic laws, for society to function (even though it would be extremely terrifying).

Think over a normal day in your life. You go to school, hang with your friends, do your homework, eat, maybe watch TV or go on Myspace, and go to bed. At any part of your day, do you feel pressured and forced into doing anything? You may think that you are in complete control of your life. Think again: the government forces you to go to school, your friends pressure you into hanging with them, your teachers force you to do homework, the biological needs in your body force you to eat, society pressures you into watching TV and going on Myspace. But is this really all that bad? You still have the liberty to do as you please. You can choose not to go to school, not to hang with your friends, not to do your homework, not to eat, not to watch TV or go on Myspace. Of course, this would lead to consequences: flunking out of school, scorn from your friends, starvation, not being accepted into society.

Now, you may be wondering, “Do I have any choice? Haven’t society and the government set up these laws, norms, and regulations to control me, and there is nothing I can do about it if I don’t want to be punished?” But ask yourself this: if there was no punishment for murder, would you still do it? In fact, go a little deeper, and ask yourself whether or not you would murder if there was a reward for it? I know my answer is no. But isn’t this because we’ve been controlled to think murder is wrong? Even so, is that really so bad? Shouldn’t I be thankful that society and the government are looking out for us, making it easier for us to live our lives? But, maybe I’m beginning to value my own security over my own liberty and natural rights. That’s a big no-no. But, don’t we have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? So, in fact, my support of the laws against murder and my fondness of my own security is my natural right as a human being.

This “social contract” that the government and society have set up for us may seem like a restriction on our liberties. On the contrary, it is the only way that our liberties can be exercised. I know that I, along with many others, stop at red lights not because I will be fined if I don’t, but because I am benefiting society if I do. I don’t drink as a minor (and intend never to drink) not because I will be punished if I do, but because I won’t be happy with myself if I do. Laws have been established by our fellow humankind not to control us, but to make us happier. Just think: the police that enforce laws on us, have to follow the laws themselves. Politicians are subject to law, just as we all are. This social contract works, not because it must, but because we want it to. Humankind is naturally good, and it is a social contract such as ours that helps humankind stay good.

But you may ask: what of rapists and murderers, thieves and MTV? Aren’t criminals such as these proof that mankind is evil, that we need laws and order to train us to be good, that we are therefore never free? On the contrary, society has corrupted these minds. Hopelessness and despair in others makes us secure in our own happiness. They’re not truly evil, just mislead. And it is our duty as human beings to help them see the light. And if jails and courts help accomplish this, then so be it. I know I wouldn’t mind taking all of the rapists, murderers, thieves, and MTV-lovers, putting them on the island in Lost, and letting them go extinct, either through cannibalism, polar bears, the Others, or electromagnetic field disruptions. I would love to therefore be free to have a stable anarchy, where we all follow a social contract not because we are afraid of the punishments, but because we care about our brethren. However, I believe that this is happening now, at least in my mind. I care about humanity, and therefore I follow laws, I support welfare, I support jails (just as long as they’re learning environments, not concentration camps). I believe that corrupt individuals still have good in them, and need our help.

So, will you let mankind fail by complaining about how controlled we are, or help mankind by loving your liberties?

“If men were angels, government would not be necessary”—James Madison; the opposite is also true: “I trust all men, just not the devils inside them”—“The Italian Job”; the capricious whims of mankind pervert an otherwise idyllic society;

Yes, I believe that a government with policemen is necessary because there are bad seeds—people who are sociopathic, who feel no emotion, who will no sooner look at you then kill you; who’s heart rates never go above 70 when committing the most heinous of crimes—these people have a natural tendency to be evil, yet their upbringing, I believe, largely sways them to either side; the government cannot be responsible for the upbringing, the emotional nurturing, the psychological health of every child; the odd person, who feels no emotions—who must look to others to even understand what to express at a particular situation—makes the protection of policemen an inconvenient necessity. However, to say that all people are born evil, is an overgeneralization; rather, I believe people are born a blank slate, and are the accumulations of their interactions with the world and people, and the positive or negative experiences of life in general; however, just as there are people born with no emotion, I believe there are those born with a natural tendency to be good—those of us who are instinctively more empathetic, with just intrinsic values that cannot be paralleled; who knows, maybe these people are just a step up above the normal person on the reincarnation ladder;

Yet, I believe the government, at times goes too far; take the Patriot Act; the government oversteps its boundaries in a dogmatic fashion by monitoring the private conversations of citizens on random; is this fair? Is this what our founding fathers fought for when they seceded from their British brethren, from the tyrant 3,000 miles away? Did they fight to have “3,000 tyrants, one mile away”? What about World War II when the Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps—the kind we sought to exterminate in Germany? Should this be allowed, even in the name of our “homeland security”?

The government (led by our impishly apish president), it seems, is becoming more oligarchial as the years wear by. They have no right or privilege to do such things, and it should be deemed unconstitutional—whatever happened to the system of checks and balances?

I believe that most people are good, and follow the laws, because they see the logic beneath. However, I also believe that Police, Detectives, and the FBI are necessary to protect the general populous from the one in a million lunatic. Yet, at times, the government goes too far; and by doing so, we, the citizens of the nation thought to be so imbued with “liberty”, lose the rights promised to us so long ago.

Do the strong “do what they want, while the weak suffer what they must”? Short of breaking a written law enforced by police, what rules keep order in the community and establish social norms? Who makes these rules? How are these rules communicated between us? What is the penalty for failing to heed them?

America. Land of the free, home of the brave.

After reading most of these blogs, I noticed that several individuals commented on how Americans are not appreciative of their liberties. Do we take advantage of the fact that we are free and are free to do what we want? Yes. Yeah it is nice to know that many before us broke their backs and agonized day after day on setting the foundation of this country, but people don’t dwell on that each day.

Lets face it, today our society, our country, is based on that common theory of “survival of the fittest”. Each day a vast majority of our country is based on people who are trying to make money to survive and survive because they make money. We all have our daily agendas to take care of and we are so caught up in our own whirlwinds of education, family, friends, jobs, and etc.

What I am trying to say is that here in America, people do what they have to do. People know that they live in a country where there are rights such as freedom of speech and much more. But there are people who are bound to abuse their rights. Yes, it would be fantastic is everyone followed the rules and vowed to never go against government authority, but it is time to face reality. When this country was founded, many of “New World” settlers agreed that they would abide by this new Constitution, but not all. What about those representatives from chosen areas who left during the Constitutional Convention because they didn’t agree with its ideas and standards? Do you think that when the Constitution became established that these people would most certainly be willing to live by it, no questions asked? No, of course not. Their hot-headedness and stubbornness most likely lead them to either breaking the rules or returning back to Britain where they could wallow in their own sorrow. But for those who could not afford to leave America, their attitude towards authority passed on to future generations similar to a family tradition. As time went by, more people became prompted to break more rules.

So because we parted from Britain and decided to form our own government, we have our fair share of advantages and disadvantages. Yes, we broke apart from the reigns of a king, but now we are faced with the fact that we will always have those individuals who break the rules. We cannot expect this country to be perfect. If there are people out there who are unsatisfied with this country and think that its rules and such are unfair, then they can leave. My point is that we all cannot be expected to follow the rules in this country. It is guaranteed that that will never happen, just look at the number of murders, assaults, and robberies this year alone.

If our country was expected to be perfect and everyone did live in a “perfect” way, then we would most likely be living in a 1984 scenario. Big Brother would probably be watching us. The fear that took place in this novel would be the atmosphere of this “perfect” country. I fear that our country might soon slowly disintegrate into this type of world. A world with government authority, trying to track our calls, with the media, telling us how to act, how to be, and with cameras, attempting to monitor our every mood. And for what? So people don’t break the rules? So there is no room for opposition? No room for opinions? So the country can be “perfect”?

Well, our world has come to just that…

Liberty? Freedom? To an adult in America they may merely be words that are antonyms to slavery; the words do not rouse an emotional response. Why is that? Why are the citizens of America so apathetic when it comes to the very building blocks of our government? The ideals so many young men have died for over the years? Where did the fervor fade away into passive acknowledgment?

Sure, people were outraged when the USA Patriot Act was proposed. (Did you know that it is an acronym? Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Whew, that’s a mouthful!) But were they really incensed because their so-called liberty would potentially be violated? Or was it because of the American culture’s obsession with privacy? Or are liberty and privacy one and the same?

According to Merriam-Webster online, liberty is defined as “the quality or state of being free,” and privacy as “freedom from unauthorized intrusion.” So the two are related. BUT why are people so rankled about privacy yet not enthusiastic about liberty?

AMERICANS ARE TOO USED TO THEIR LIBERTIES!

For example, a person going to the mall doesn’t think to him or herself, “Wow, I’m really lucky to be allowed the freedom to go to the mall this afternoon.” Instead, the train of thought is most likely along the lines of: “I can’t believe that my parent(s) are only letting me stay for an hour! And they didn’t give me any money!” Why is it that Americans are so focused on the negative side of things? That instead of thanking their lucky stars that they live in a free America, they complain?

Maybe it would be better to live under a dictator. I mean, just think, under communism everyone (theoretically) gets the same amount of food, housing, pay, schooling, etc. NO ONE COMPLAINS.

Or there’s monarchy, where more freedoms are allowed than in a dictatorship, but only on the whim of the monarch. But if the monarch is truly loved by the subjects, his or her will should be followed without a single whisper of dissent.

People under regimes such as those in Korea and Cuba long for freedom and liberty but are too afraid of saying anything, so they keep quiet. On the other hand, there are those who are completely sucked into the government and want nothing more. In America people have liberty and freedom and are, for the most part, unhappy and constantly complain. On the other hand, in some peoples’ eyes the government can do no wrong. Where is the balance? In both governments the majority is unhappy and the minority is brainwashed.

Should we all go back to the caveman days of tribal life? They were monarchies of sort, but if you were unhappy with the tribal leader all you had to do was come up behind him with a club and give him a good WHACK. There. Problem solved. The rest of the clan wouldn’t do anything to you (as long as they also disliked the now-dead leader) because no sense of morals bound you to a certain conduct. Dog-eat-dog is the only motto and the strongest survive. No intricate intrigues, no rowdy revolutions, no mass-murders. And the best part? Nobody could complain because everyone was too busy trying to hack a living from the wilderness.

The American constitution in the Bill of Rights ensures that our rights are protected from governmental control. But are we really enjoying the rights that are there? Or do we just enjoy throwing temper tantrums when our rights are threatened?

Are the peoples of the world forever going to be cycling from democracy to monarchy and back again? Are we forever going to follow my example in democracy when, as a two-year-old, I told my mom one morning: “I’m the mom today.” Or when I was four and I started saying, “It’s alright with me,” thus sanctioning whatever ‘iffy’ activity I desired. And then swing to the other side of the cycle and recognize a single powerful ruler as I did when I was four and I asked my mom: “You’re the boss of the house, aren’t you?”

No matter what government we have, there are always going to be various influences that control us. Even the cavemen were controlled, not by pop culture or police, but by the necessity of working together for the survival of the tribe as a whole.

The question of whether or not we are truly free in the United States is analogous to the story of the Dog and the Wolf. Like the dog, we are given rights and privileges that provide us with opportunities to live in comfort. Bust also like the dog, a leash adorns our necks. The leash is composed of laws and regulations that restrict our freedoms, though supposedly only for our protection and convenience. As dogs, we snarl and snap and each other for the best possessions, the best job, the best life. A wolf could not be granted such a privilege, and essential to their survival is the formation of protective packs.

Readers’ Digest subscribers took a pole that named France the rudest country. (No surprise there from the stereotypical attention that it gets.) France is also one of the most governmentally liberal, and therefore “doggish” of countries. This rather random rudeness is a display of a “dog” and not a “wolf” lashing out. As a part of a republic, citizens of the United States are called to be trustworthy and kind people by a social contract, and yet the luxury of our daily lives traps many of us within the character of snarling dogs. Dogs are inclined to throw things from their cars at Mr. Geib as he rides his bike for no apparent reason. Dogs are inclined to ridicule homeless people that have not so much as looked at them. Dogs are inclined to stick out their foot and trip someone, either figuratively or literally. Perhaps that is why someone with tendencies to commit petty yet evil deeds is referred to as a bitch: a female dog. However petty in the great scheme of things, all are unprovoked yet deliberate acts of cruelty that violate the social contract of a republic.

On the other hand, people are perfectly capable and willing to fulfill their end of the social contract, thus behaving higher than a dog. People go out of their way to empathize and assist all the time. My mother has had several such incidents occur with her. When my mom got into a car accident on the freeway, a sixteen-wheeler truck stopped to block any further traffic from colliding with her. Also, when my mom hitchhiked as a college student, the person that picked her up took her home, but not without scolding her angrily during the course of the entire ride about the dangers of hitchhiking. A fulfillment of the social contract can also be seen as an integral part of the bigger world. When children get lost at stores or amusement parks, it is a policy to help the child locate their parents through any means necessary. When one goes to a restaurant or movie theatre senior discounts can be found, and other such benefits exist to make life easier for those who’ve worked so long to deserve it. Various conveniences exist to facilitate the lives of handicapped people, ranging from ramps to passage to the front of lines as amusement parks. In general, people are not on a mission to commit random acts of cruelty, but rather random acts of kindness.

Concerning liberty, I cannot agree that we are the most free country. From my experience visiting and keeping up with the times in Mexico, I have noticed that they award many more liberties to their citizens. Not the most prestigious among these is the legalization of Marijuana. However, Mexico has freedoms regarding the ownership of property and businesses. In Mexico, they are free of regulations and permits that disallow people to develop their land as they see necessary to better their lives. For instance, in the Ventura County, we continue to have those RIDICULOUS “Save the Hillside” concerts that infringe on that landowner’s right to do what they’d like with THEIR rightfully owned land. Another example is Daryl Hannah’s foolish support of an even more foolish cause. A man had generously allowed his land to the community out of the kindness of his heart. When he decided that it was time to sell his land, the community ungraciously revolted against him and painted him as a villain after he had been generous for years. They disrespected his only request after he had given them such a privilege. Lastly, a ludicrous amount of regulations exist when it comes to starting a business. The state of things in the business world is not conducive for the “little guy” that is trying to keep his head up. Small businesses often crash before they even leave the ground. It promotes the circumstances that cause “the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.”

Upon asking my sister the question whether we are less free than those who are ruled under dictators she replied with a crooked look on her face and answered with another question, "But is that really freedom? It is safety not freedom." I decided to give her reply some thought.

She has a real point. A dictatorship can be much of a safety net. There isn’t as much leeway for breaking the rules due to the extreme consequences. Maybe a dictatorship that enforces through fear is more efficient than a democracy like President Bush who enforces through checks and balances and at the end barely has any direct power over the people. A dictator is going to be able to enforce any law no matter how absurd because of his complete power. Nobody says no. So is this freedom?

I feel very free in my day to day life. I can wear whatever clothes I want, drive wherever I want and vote when I‘m 18. Sure, there’s peer pressure to wear “cool” clothes but it doesn’t really affect me. I wear what I think is cute and what makes me happy. Sure, I can’t drive between the hours of 11p.m. and 5 a.m. but that’s a safety issue. I should be at home at that time of night; if I were driving that would be dangerous not only to me but other drivers. Sure, I have to wait until I’m 18 to vote but at least by then I’ll be more educated and able to make a good decision for the future of our country. All of the laws I am under everyday do not take away from my freedoms. I am happy to have them for my own safety. Yes it is a good idea to have cameras at intersections so nobody runs a red light and slams into me. Yes it is a good decision to make robbing a bank illegal so people can responsible for their actions.

Under a dictator the oppression would be unbearable. In Iraq, women weren’t allowed to vote or drive cars. These are freedoms women take for granted everyday here in a free country. Maybe a dictator could provide more security but he cannot deliver “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal…” I hold these freedoms close to my heart and although I may be controlled by many outside elements I would not trade my everyday freedom to be under a dictator without pressures.

P.S. I have no regrets about being shallow and wearing 100% brand name clothes (with the exception of some of my socks)

The Law. What is it really? According to Webster’s Dictionary it means: “a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”. This sounds nice and all on paper but is its meaning really portrayed in the everyday happenings all around us? If everything went as well as it sounded, then Russia, China, and even Vietnam would be the perfect countries of Communism.

If we can remember back in World History with Ms. Eulau and the Cold War period, Karl Marx had a good thing going when he came up with the flawless governmental system known as Communism but as soon as Russia tried to establish it was a new government, the whole country fell apart and ended up with a “Big Brother” society where everyone was living in fear and oppression.

Our governmental laws also sound nice at a glance but as time goes by it seems as though almost everyone breaks the “Social Contract” that they have agreed on. As discussed in class, the fact that we drive is actually a privilege not a right and if we violate it by: running red lights, parking in “No Parking Zones”, speeding, or any other laws of the road; then our privilege to drive will be revoked. But when this happens, people start complaining as if they were not in the wrong at all. Some might not see it this way but the government created laws not to oppress the people but to keep crime from reeking havoc and to keep us safe.

Why do you think that there are speed limits on almost every street? It’s so that the peaceful streets in cities such as Ventura don’t turn into the Autobahn highway in Germany. Without these, we might have an accident every five seconds. That might help with monitoring the over-population rate but that would be a worthless way to do it.

People complain that there are more and more laws being made hindering their “liberty” but they don’t see the fact that the laws are made so to prevent a sudden outbreak of crime and murder.

All that I said just now might sound like a Utopian paradise but in reality, there are everyday incidences of people who continually break these laws because of course: “Laws are meant to be Broken”. There are tons of these examples happening from the smallest degree to the large scale ones. You might think that your parents are the most honest and law-following people in the world but if you pay attention to their driving, they all run a red light now and then in hopes that there is no camera there to catch them in the act. So, the whole quote that I mentioned about just now should be revised to: “Laws are only meant to be broken if you don’t get caught doing it”

Think about it.