Dalis Collins

Ok, well I was kinda of interested in the topic of virtual worlds and opened the required reading, Avatars and their Creators, early. From our discussion in class, I was actually disgusted by the entire idea which naturally being an average American rather than deterring me from further exploration piqued my curiosity enough that I dived in. With obesity and the lack of real relationships a real problem in today’s society, this just seemed like fuel for the fire. Therefore, I was not surprised to find the picture of the teenager who was grossly obese and dropped out of school because of his obsession with the game.
However, I was surprised by the amount of good these activities had to offer. I was especially struck by the picture of the teenage on the respirator who explained that the game was his connection to the outside world. In the “real” world, people are often awkward around him or do not give him the respect and independence he craves because of his disability. The game gave him an opportunity to experience things that would otherwise be impossible and form meaningful relationships with other players that was not biased by his disability.
There were numerous other stories like this. From the guild members from all over the US that supported its other members after Katrina to the woman who conquered her inability to connect with people, it just goes to show that nothing is all bad. I still feel strongly against its excesses. It is addictive like gambling, but with proper moderation and restriction has a place in the world. I believe its uses for people with social anxiety, autism, and other disabilities and disorders needs to be investigated. This could be one of the strongest tools at our disposal that is currently underutilized because no one is doing the necessary research and education.
I have to admit I personally feel like for the average person investing too much time in “virtual” worlds is pathetic (strong word, I know). I would hate to see “virtual” hiking replace real hiking. I would hate to see “virtual” meetings replace real. I would hate to see the beauty of the world around us replaced by the insignificance contained in a 12” by 12” screen.

Blogs and Democracy

Lessig’s comments on free culture dealing with blogs and free speech via the internet was very interesting. I had never really considered the difference between news on television and news on the internet because when I search for news I generally go to one of the major channel’s websites and it’s the same thing you see on TV. However, there are many other types of news and information resources available over the internet, and these sources do have some advantages over TV. Mainstream media is profit-based and clearly biased. CNN, FOX, and NBC (among others) cater to their audiences and present news in an entertaining and interesting way that people will want to watch. On the other hand, internet bloggers and independent sources can give an almost unlimited number of perspectives on an event, allowing the viewer to form his or her own opinion based on the information rather than viewing the pre-fabricated opinion of a news network. While bloggers don’t have the same resources as professional reporters to do full investigative journalism, they offer perspectives that professionals simply cannot provide. Because bloggers are not motivated by profit, they can be much more liberal in their delivery and in the information that they present. Lessig compares bloggers to Olympic athletes, amateurs participating based on passion alone. He believes that this leads to a broad range of perspectives which lets readers “triangulate” to the truth. The most important facet of blogging is that there is no “gatekeeper” who controls the information that is presented. This allows more unlimited information and communication and is a proponent of democracy.

Second Life.. Out of Control

I had never heard of this concept of "Second Life" before the assigned reading for class. I was absolutely blown away by the idea in general, and when discussing further Second Life issues in class on Thursday, I couldn't believe the things I heard. First off, if you don't know exactly what Second Life is, it's an internet program in which you create an "avatar" (a person/animal that represents you in Second Life) and interact with other avatars online. It sounds like a fun chatroom right? Not exactly. Apparently, from what I gathered, users on Second Life go to dance clubs, create buildings, earn money, and pay real money (which I believe is called "Linden Dollars" after the creator of Second Life) to do various things. Furthermore, users can engage in sexual activity with others avatars.
In class, we read articles and discussed the problems and challenges people have with Second Life. For some, it's just a game to meet new people and chat on occasion. For others, it's a way of life. Some people spend hours on end on Second Life, treating it almost as their own real life. How is this healthy? Why don't these people just live out their own lives in the real world rather than have a fake one online?
Another topic that came up in class is Second Life relationships. We read two articles that discussed the sex aspect of Second Life. Would you break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend or even your spouse if you knew they were having a Second Life relationship? Why on earth would they choose to have a Second Life relationship in the first place? The first article we read discussed how there is an emotional intimacy attached to Second Life relationships. The next talked about couples who broke up with/divorced their significant others for their Second Life "cheating." I think all of this talk of relationships on Second Life is nonsense. I don't think an online relationship counts as true love to any extent.

The Pleasure Principle

After I listened to this radio link about homophily, I think it was interesting topic that to be discussed. Social scientist call "homophily" refer to the principle of ‘birds of a feather flock together’ means that benefit from the collective interest of a particular group. Ethan Zuckerman, blogger and internet theorist, has been trying to fight this natural force of human during online. He offers techniques for surprising and challenging readers with news that they didn't know they wanted.

I agree with him about homophily has something danger of making us stupid. For example, let's say, we want to watch video something about our study or course. Firstly, if we open YouTube website, we can see the most promoted or watch videos. Absolutely, we think more than one time whether we want to watch these videos or not. I'm really sure that fifty percent probability, we want to watch. There also the related videos those come out after our first watch or at the side of window. So, do you think we lost our time just for these related video. Of course, as Ethan said that probably there are benefits from this "flock" that related to the main topic and we can further known about something. Otherwise, I think that is not necessary for us to know all the events until we forget what are we suppose to do right now.

As we discussed in class about free speech and freedom, the Internet or reading material like newspaper provide us to give any different stuffs and points of views of any topic. People are free to promote these videos and give another link related to them. Back to the homophily habit, this is not an Internet problem but this is a human problem. We really enjoy so much about the fantastic and exciting stuffs rather than get to find something very useful for us. I think that we should concern about these freedom of free speech even through blogging or other social stuffs and only take the positive values from these freedom.

Fourth Amendment

Lessig’s commentary on the Fourth Amendment, the protection from indiscriminate searches and general warrants, is very interesting. Lessig provides three different views on the value protected by the Fourth Amendment. The first value he comments on is the protection from the unjustified burden on an indiscriminate search. The second value is the protection of an offense to dignity caused by such a search. The third value is constraining the power of the state to regulate. Lessig argues that digital surveillance does not violate the first value, the protection from an unjustified burden, because the surveillance occurs without any burden at all to the person being watched unless significant evidence is found. The second value, however, is clearly violated. Lessig writes that dignity is not harmed if the state has justification to search before it does so. I believe that this is a slippery slope, and I would imagine that there are plenty of cases where searches have been “justified” by the state without really enough evidence to do so. A digital search, while most likely accompanied by good intentions, could be a serious invasion of privacy when performed on an innocent person. The third value, protection from the state, is a very complicated issue. Many people believe that the state has too much power, especially after legislation like the Patriot Act. The ability for the government to listen in on personal phone calls, monitor your internet and correspondence, and track people with GPS seems like a clear invasion of privacy. However, events like 9/11 make it impossible to keep the citizens of our nation safe without using such drastic measures. It seems cliché to say that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about,” but in many senses its true. On the other hand, even though I’m not plotting any terrorist plans on my phone calls and over my emails (or anywhere for that matter), the thought that someone could be monitoring me at any time is definitely not a good feeling.

Lack of Privacy

Privacy and the internet are two luxuries that seem to be in clear conflict. Our readings and discussions about privacy on the internet makes me think of a story from a few summers ago back in Florida. A man was on trial for the murder of his wife in my town and the case became a national news story. It was a very strange case because, according to the man, he and his wife had been on the beach when someone mugged them at gunpoint, killing his wife and shooting him in the shoulder. The prosecutors, however, argued that the man either killed his wife himself and then shot himself, or that he hired someone to shoot both of them. The case was especially confounded because the man had taken out a very large life insurance policy on his wife only months before the incident. This story relates to our discussions about privacy because the deciding factor in the case, the evidence that led to the man’s conviction, was that an investigation of his internet history revealed that he had been researching gunshot wounds before the shooting. The prosecutors were able to convince the jury that he had planned the shooting and had been researching ways to survive the gunshot wound that he sustained either from himself or from another party. Now, I am not arguing that the man wasn’t guilty, and if he is guilty, then he got what he deserves. However, it seems iffy that a man’s internet history and the things he researches are admissible in court and could be the deciding factor for whether he spends the rest of his life in jail or not. Looking at phone logs and email history are somewhat understandable, even though many people argue that they are still an invasion of privacy. In most cases, I don’t think that the websites someone browses or the tv shows they download should be public property.

Head Space

I felt particular concerned when listen to radio story about "Head Space" because there was a billboard emits highly focused sound that resonates within the skulls of passerby. Currently, this device is invading the right of privacy in individual's mind. The billboard is flanked by devices that look like speakers but which direct highly focused sound at unsuspected persons who trigger a sensor by walking by. The sound is sent at a fixed frequency that can only be heard by them because the transmitter uses the skull as a speaker and so the sound resonates inside the head. The first think when I listen to how this unique device work is very unbelievable and been effective enough to scare even the person.

Clive Thompson who is technology writer explained that it's part of a wave a new device design on every person mind. He continued explained that this technology is part of a new legal area, ethical area that can called "the civil right of the mind". So how really this device legal to person's right? I'm very concern that as we discussed the new modern technology like wiretapping will violate the privacy of mankind. These technological innovations are eroding sanctify of our mind because they would be functioned as read what's on our mind. In fact, we no longer private and it can literally say that our head is not safe just for our own thoughts. So, is unfair for us to forced get technologies that can put things inside our head, like this one?

We're forced to hear useless voices and we can't cover our ears by headphone or even some paper towels. The way this technology works is that it's making our body resonate and become the device for making noise. I really concerned about the fact that creators developing technology faster than we're updating our legal and ethical ways of thinking about that because up until now, we're been think that these new technologies not really hundred percent invading our private. Unfortunately, I think more powerful technology will be created and out of expected by us regarding how it affects our privacy. Does our legal tradition or our Constitutional tradition that we already discussed in class have any answer for these types of technology? I would like to know it soon while I really hope that the creators think about mankind privacy before create some modern technology devices.

Dalis Collins

The iPhone: The best new gadget or a government tracking device?
With all the classroom discussion of the abilities of electronics andcomputers to track movements, I hardly expected the iPhone to be partof the problem. However, right before my very eyes, the newest iPhonecommercial shows an application that allows you to track people. Thisincludes having access to their location and their activity. I don'tknow the name of the application; if it is free or you have topurchase it. I do not know if you can select the people who view you.I do know that on some basic level that feels wronge to me. Grantedthis information is only available if you choose to upload thatapplication, who is to say apple does not have complete access to thatinformation anyway if you have that application because of the GPSlocator in the phone. It may be hidden from view from other users whodo not have that application but who is to say Apple does not haveaccess.We learned in class and the reading that other companies have beenpetitioned by the government to give up information about theirclients. Cell phone companies keep records of all calls made by theircustomers. The government uses this information in profiling and courtcases. What would prevent them from using this information? Googlerefused to give information out about users who searched for illicitsites. This is ethically admirable, but it is definitely not the norm.These companies sell this information for everything from targetedadvertising to surveillance and even to private citizens. Quoting thereading, that is worse than Orwell's 1984.I for one will never get an iPhone. It may be the wave of the future,but it is certainly not a future I would support if this oneapplication is any indication.

"Permanent Record"

"Permanent Record" is a radio story that discusses the internet and how what we write online is, for the most part, permanent. The story mentions a variety of hot topics that address to what extent we have online privacy.
First, the show discusses Google. Google is a website that can be used to gather information for a report, look up pictures online, or, on another note, to snoop on someone's business. Let's face it, how many of us have typed in someone's name to Google just to see what comes up? I've done it before, and after listening to this article I actually Google searched myself, and found some new entries on me that I hadn't seen before. Though I'm really not too worried about being searched for online, I can see why some people may be bothered by the fact that they can be linked to various sites just by typing their name into Google and hitting "search."
Next, Nazanin Rafsanjani is interviewed. Nazanin wrote an email to iranian.com after 9/11 expressing her concerns and where her trust stood at that point in time. She was 19 at the time, and now many years later still is embarrassed and horrified that this article cannot be erased. Soon after she wrote the email, she wrote to the website asking to erase the entry that she had written. To Nazanin's surprise, the website wrote back that it could not be erased, that everything on that website was permanent. Now, a few years later, Nazanin finds it discomforting that she is unable to erase something personal that she wrote just because she submitted it online. This is true with many websites on the internet. Facebook and Myspace are great examples of websites in which people pour out there feelings and unknowingly write something traced to their name that is permanent. This is a reason why I personally try not to reveal too much of myself on my Facebook page. I know some people who blog often and enjoy writing all of their feelings down online for everyone to see, yet I don't think this is the smartest idea. What if, in the future, someone was trying to get a job with a big company, and this company searched for that person's name on Google and found a silly blog they had written on Facebook in which that person poured out all of their personal feelings and ideas, no matter how embarrassing they were?
Last of all, Emily Nussbaum is interviewed. Emily wrote an article about life online, and talks about key points on privacy and the internet. She discusses an idea of "chronicle asynchrony," that is, how someone can write something in 1990 and another person can respond to this same entry in 2003. The internet doesn't erase itself, no matter how old websites or blog entries may be. Some other bothersome ideas about the internet is that everything is linked, everything is searchable, and the concept of "invisible audiences"- that is, people can read stuff about you and you will never have any clue who read it.

The First Sale Doctrine

I'm interested when listen the radio story about “Seller Beware”. As summary for this story was, Universal Music Group filed suit in federal court against California resident Troy Augusto, who makes a living selling used CDs on eBay. Universal, however argued that in this case Universal Music Group still owns those CDs and Augusto isn't authorized to make some profit on sell them. Keep in mind that someone who owned some stuff, so he or she has a right to do anything on this stuff. This property called physical property.

Back to selling CDs case, is fair Augusto will get punishment caused by his action to selling used CDs that his own? I agree with the Fred von Lohmann who is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation because he defending Augusto. He connected this case to the other similar case involved a novel entitled The Castaways. In that case, Marcy's was selling the novel for 89 cents a copy after brought the novel from a wholesaler fair. Marcy's said, that's my business and the copyright owner doesn't have control of that. The First Sale Doctrine lawsuit applied causing both sellers in the above cases get punishment. This law applied not only to copyright items that are sold but to those that are given away.

According to Lessig said that he worried about nowadays code enable creator to have full power on their product. I not really satisfy with the enclosure nowadays because it strikes the right balance. Is unfair for us to pay the money to the creator or authors to get permission to make some copy on it? I think is unfair because the owner hand have change from creator to us. I agree with Fred, Universal here is able to trump the First Sale Doctrine by putting a little label on a product that say" For promotional use only, not for sale" or in the above case, a label says" This CD for home use only". As we discussed in class about the copyright ©, there is permission culture for us to use and this is a clear sign to understand.

Thoughts on Panopticon

Consumer panopticon is a very remarkable new technology that both Hull and Lessig refer to in their discussion on privacy. It is a system that collects data about you from where you go online that results in better-targeted advertising. Advantages to this include efficiency for gatherers of data (companies), the sales of things to you that you're actually interested in, and that computers can tell what you like and might actually buy rather than trying to sell you any random item. Disadvantages to this include manipulation, discrimination, and issues with the government. Lessig in particular is concerned with manipulation because they system knows better than you do what you want and when you wanted. Discrimination can be problematic because some people might be solicited different items based on how much money they make. Also, these companies could possibly turn over information to the government about who they monitor and sell to.
Overall, I don't think consumer panopticon is much of an issue or anything we should be too concerned about. I think we just need to be aware that it exists. It can be advantageous to us in some ways because we are being advertised to about items that studies show we may like. For example, I'm a big ebay shopper, and I really like how once I buy an item, ebay will display a list of 10 or more items that shoppers like me were also interested in. I usually browse this section and occasionally find something that I might potentially buy. It is helpful to have a system that monitors your activity online such as this. I can see where consumer panopticon might be troublesome for some people but I do not think it is something to dwell on. It mildly invades one's privacy for the sake of companies better targeting their buyers.

Copyrights

I found Lessig’s lecture on copyrights and intellectual property to be very interesting. I had never considered the ramifications of patents and copyrights for original works before watching this video, but I think that it is an important topic. Lessig speaks about the Copyright or “Progress” clause that was placed in the Constitution to “promote progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” I think that it makes complete sense that the Constitution provides protection for intellectual property because without incentive for people to invent, society would lack many of the luxuries that we now take for granted. In the modern world where it is so easy to copy and redistribute someone else’s work, legal protection for innovators seems like a necessity. The problem is that, because these innovators and their families can now make such enormous profits from their work, they become greedy. The example that Lessig gives about Sunny Bono’s copyright extension after his death shows how these granted monopolies have turned into ways for families to profit from work that is not theirs. On the other hand, maybe it is the right of Bono’s family to reap the rewards of his success. While it does seem a bit ridiculous that the protection of Bono’s work has been extended even after his death, his work was his own and he should have rights to it. A compromise solution could include a shorter term of full protection with an extended period of royalties if the innovator decides to make his or her work public. Offering an incentive such as increased royalties or some form of compensation for innovators to remove full protection from their work could allow society to benefit more fully from their work, while still giving innovators reason to continue producing.

Something New Destroying Something Old

I really liked the first article by Lessig that we read as an introduction to the topic of intellectual privacy. In Lessig #1, the author makes a statement to sum up his article and propose an idea. Lessig says that "while the Internet has indeed produced something fantastic and new, our government, pushed by big media to respond to this 'something new,' is destroying something very old." I interpreted this "something fantastic and new" to be the new innovations and ways of communication allowed for by the development of the internet, and this "something very old" to be the law and the Constitution established when our country was first founded. This phrase has a lot of truth and depth to it. It is very true that the internet is something fantastic and new. It has made waves in the way we communicate, research, share ideas, respond to others, and much more. It has changed the way we can view the world and has made many resources available to us at the tip of our fingertips. The Internet is a remarkable thing and should not be overlooked. Yet with all these pros comes a major con. Our privacy is definitely compromised with the Internet and the access to resources we have at hand. It is destroying something very old because our privacy laws written in the Constitution are violated. Unfortunately, we cannot figure out how to regulate the Internet or how much restriction we should put on it, because the laws we abide by were written many years ago and do not apply to modern day as well. The writers of the Constitution could not have dreamed of the technology we have and therefore have no input into how we can regulate it. So, what is the answer? Perhaps the best way for us to deal with this idea is to abide by the Constitution as best we can, and take the rest case by case. We must come up with a way to regulate privacy and allow for the sharing of ideas in a way that doesn't take away from the fundamental laws that we set long ago. This is not an easy task at hand. Lessig discusses various ideas and probable situations; they just must be put into action.

Talks Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law?

I interested with the presentation made by the Lessig on his talked about the stories and (re) creativity. The third stories his talked about how concern farmers toward the airplane that trespasser along the land. The old culture provides a law so that airplane cannot pass through the private land but this law has changed because it didn't make any sense how can people to travel by the airplane without passing along the private land. Is people must give some money so that he or she can move through the private owned?

Return to his talked about the creativity, he didn't really emphasize and explain how creativity is being strangled by the law. How can his concern about the read only (RO) really strangled the creativity. Currently, law have changed the culture from read-write (RW) culture refer to participate creation and re-creation the culture to read only (RO) culture means culture that create creativity consumed, but consumer not creator. I think he didn't fear lose about the (RO) culture because it protects the right of intellectual property of creators.

The clip that Lessig used referring to Christ is accidentally a very good argument against abandoning managed copyright laws on the internet. I personally not prefer so much in Lessig done showing the "Jesus Christ the Musical" because it against the feel of people. In addition, I doubt very much whether or not the authors of the Jesus Video ever took into account the feelings, religious views, or intent of the original writers of "I Will Survive". I really want some laws that prevent this unexpected clip although the authors have his or her right to show his creations.

If one re-mixes an original song with an original animation like clips that show George W. Bush then, the only originality was use of the merging element; likely copyrighted in its own capacity as a piece of computer software. In essence there is a significantly less amount of creativity given by the "re-mixer". I agree about Lessig saying that "today's children" are creative by way of re-mixing like the above example because this re-mixing will destroy the behavior of children. Don't we have some responsibility to help continue the age old tradition of music? What about the art of animation? Giving a wider creative license in this scenario may be justifiable, but what are the effects to be had? This type of view may one day shift the emphasis from a traditional music education or animation class to that of a sitting in front of a computer all day. I like Lessig's emphasize about Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) that much more democratize that at least provide the benefits for the future of children and open for business compared to capitalism that want the profit-making only in their business.

Dalis Collins

Latent Ambiguity: WTF mate? (3 pts)

Before this class, I had never heard of latent ambiguity. However, it is rather self explanatory: there is an unanticipated (latent) thing that is not clear (ambiguity). Ok, so that is not the best definition, but you get the point. It seems like the internet has brought a tidal wave of these to the forefront. Specifically in the area of copyright, the lines have been blurred. What is piracy? What is the responsibility of the government and law in policing this? What are appropriate measures to put in place to discourage it? What our users rights in relation to copyrighted material?
The framers of the constitution put a single line in to recognize this important concept: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. “ While the need for this protection is obvious, unless I was paid to create something, I would put no effort in it because it is not profitable (I know, an evil word). Anytime before now there was a physical attachment to a work. A book had to be printed; a record had to be bought. However, internet has made it possible for unlimited consumption via downloads of works of music, literature, television, and movies. This possibility was unforeseen by the framers of the constitution.
My use of a downloaded file does not preclude someone else from using or enjoying the same thing. The physical characteristic of property has been removed from these objects because of their widespread availability on the internet. The question then is what did the framers intend for us to do about protecting intellectual property when it is totally removed from ability to create value by creating artificial scarcity. Many companies are producing software and asking for donations for their work. I know the post-it software I use does this. However, I hate to admit it, but I did not donate anything for the software. But if this software was not already free, I would not have bought it. My use of the software does not equal lost sales of which reduction is the ultimate goal of the company. While initially I believe there was too little control, I now believe many companies have overstepped their boundaries.

Dalis Collins

Contracts Vs. Code (3 pts.)
Lessig is definitely an innovative thinker. With the area of intellectual and property law literally changing before our eyes, it is necessary for new and creative ideas to be put forth to control the onslaught of piracy while maintaining an environment conducive to artistic thought. Currently computer code is being used to aggressively control who downloads (makes a copy) or even uses certain files. Music, television, and movies are aggressively controlled on the internet. Sites like Napster and my personal favorite www.surfthechannel.com are now being watched for infringement by major recording, television, and movie companies. While this is understandable, in certain situations this idea of intellectual property is taken too far and interferes with the fair use clause stifling the creative environment.
The fair use clause stipulates uses of original work without permission of the author while still under copyright protection in the spirit of research, criticism, and scholarship. I do a lot of online research for scholarly articles for many of my molecular biology classes. We are often discussing cutting edge research and material that is not accurately covered in any textbook. However, I am continually frustrated by the fact that I can find relevant articles but can only view the abstract. Because of stringent copyright laws and computer code that physically blocks me from viewing the article, my research is inhibited. I often cannot even find the articles when I go through the library website. It is extremely frustrating.
While I realize the internet opens up a whole new venue of distribution of a work with the ability to download files from anywhere on earth, I agree with Lessig that there needs to be a compromise. I like the idea of having a contract between the user and the site allowing viewing and sometimes even downloads on a contractual basis. Rather than setting up a fence with code completely restricting use, one can set up an agreement that is policed in part by users like Wikipedia that is mutually beneficial. A more widespread use is good publicity for the original author without diluting the value of the work.

Economic Democracy

Schweickart's assessment of our current economic system and his proposal of this system economic democracy have really opened my eyes to some novel solutions to the "same old" problems that our economy and workforce seem to suffer through in capitalism. As we've found over the course of this semester, the problem that capitalism seems to have is the need for constant growth, often meaning downsizing and outsourcing, in order to remain competitive in the market. Socialism tried to answer this quintessential problem through the elimination of the market, and simply having the government provide the demand rather than the people. However, in all previous attempts the socialist/communist agenda has failed to function properly for workers. Sure they have jobs, but the quality of their products, and in return their quality of life plummets in such systems.
However, Schweickart's system of economic democracy has some unique answers to these capitalist flaws. These answers come in the way of 3 key ideals. The first ideal is that there is a semi-free market. This market is free in regards to economically equal nations, but high tariffs are placed on lesser developed areas. I think this is a great idea. These protectionist policies serve to protect both the developed nation's workers from fear of job loss to outsourcing, and abuse of cheap third world labor, as the tariff's proceeds are given back to the underdeveloped nation. The second ideal is that the workers own the means of production. This means that workers aren't simply going to work to put in their 40 hours for "the man" and receive a pittance of a paycheck, but they actually have a both a say and a vested stake in the success of the company. With a share of the management and profit sharing, it's been proven the workers will put more effort into the quality of their work, and the company will do better as a whole. The last ideal is that capital and investments from both the government and companies must be invested back into the national market. This essentially satisfies the need for constant growth that a market hungers for, and eliminating some of the hyper mobility of capital. I find that this seems to be the key idea that economic democracy has, and really like the direction it moves the economy.
I do like the ideas behind Schweickart's system of economic democracy, but I think there is a key flaw. He provides no way to switch from our existing capitalist ways into this new system. Sure once in place it can work wonders, but how do we install it? Besides, who knows if once we put the system in place whether or not we will run into flaws just as we do under capitalism?

Summer Jobs

Over past 2 years before I came to Vanderbilt, I worked a job at a local tennis shop. My work at the shop came down to anything as broad as keeping the tennis facility clean, to more calling all of the members at the last movement to let them know league play was canceled due to impending weather. After having worked at this position for so long, reading Braverman's assessment of the modern workplace seemed to have certain aspects that rang true through my work experiences. While my job's management was not as cut and dry as the clear ladder that Braverman seemed to allude to in his book, the de-skilling of labor was very clear in my work environment. Everything in the shop was run by the head pro Matt, and he had a pair of tennis pros under him (Chris, Dusty, Seth, and/or Bo) a shop manager under the pros (Pat) and 3 "evening managers" (me).
Matt held near absolute power in the shop, and provided all the instructions and tasks for others to do daily, much like Braverman suggested. Likewise, the tasks that he had the pros do were semi-skilled, and their position would be somewhat difficult to replace, as a teaching position isn't something that you can easily de-skill. However, the room for these pros to jockey for a raise was very small, as there seems to be an overabundance of washed up tennis players looking for work, or looking to improve from their old pro position, as I witnessed through 2 pros leaving for various reasons (quitting and going back to college) in my 2 years.
The position of shop manager was really 2 fold, one was a very deskilled process of keeping stock of the shop's merchandise and working the register, while the other was being a perky and warming welcome center for incoming customers. The job security in this post is somewhat guaranteed after a period of some success, as there are some concrete social skills necessary to succeed here, but the entire position has such a de-skilled overtone that basically anyone who was cheery and retired could probably learn the ropes that jockeying for a raise was not an easy affair.
Finally, my job was to basically be the handyman around the shop, work the register, clean the facilities and make the members feel welcome in the shop. It was certainly was mainly dominated by deskilled labor, and the ability to try and ask for more money was a slim prospect as anyone with the want to earn six bucks an hour could eventually be taught to fit the bill, but after working at the shop for so long, and watching the shop struggle to keep 3 night managers on payroll, I did recognize the nuances and social skills that were a part of the job that were impossible to remove. For example, after my time there I knew the back stories, and names of nearly all the regular tennis players and knew who needed a bag of ice for their arm, which court was their favorite, or who had an expected reservation on certain days and was able to keep a lively conversation with just about anyone who walked in, or grant semi-experienced tennis advice to new players. These social aspects, along with a variety of tricks and techniques for maintaing the courts that made the members happier such as leaving towels on the benches before matches, and taking the water cart routes that didn't disturb the players. While my workplace didn't fit Braverman's ideals perfectly, they did clearly have some aspects that could be modeled in his fashion, and I think that these ideals can basically be placed on many of today's careers and jobs in general.

Big Brother

I wrote a bit about this in some of my other posts about McDonald's, but I wanted to focus on a few other concepts here and tie in the Baase reading. Everyone knows that computers were a huge advancement in terms of productivity and the possibility for future improvement is now almost limitless. However, the ways that employers are using computers to stifle creativity and monitor employees is a problem. The problem for employers is that they allow workers much more freedom than they previously had. Freedom to talk to friends on instant messenger, send personal emails, browse websites, and play games. Allowing these sorts of freedoms is certainly detrimental to the bottom line and should not be tolerated in most organizations. However, the problem for employees is that their organizations can now monitor every single thing they do and can even hold them accountable for missing their keystroke quota or failing to respond to a prompt in time. I worked at Merrill Lynch last summer and they blocked almost every website that wasn’t pertinent to the company. I think that this sort of control is fine, it prevents workers from goofing off on company time. However, according to Baase, when workers are held accountable for every single move they make, aside from it being an invasion of privacy, they suffer from unnecessary stress, boredom, and low morale. Excuse me for this next comment, I’m an HOD major (probably the only one in the class), but to increase worker productivity, stifling their creativity is counterintuitive. People work differently and most people don’t meet their potential under extreme surveillance. In order to truly increase productivity in the long run, companies should work to increase employee commitment and shared vision, possibly by offering incentives to do their work and do it well, rather than by monitoring every move the employees make.

Negatives of Call Centers

I try to avoid fast food like the plague as often as possible, but the other night I found myself pressed for time and driving though a McDonald’s. While I was waiting for my food, I actually mentioned the article we read in class to the person I was ordering with. While its true that there are possible gains from the call-centers in terms of increasing accuracy, decreasing order time, and ultimately increasing bottom line profit, these aren’t the issues I brought up to my friend. Instead, I first explained how we could be talking to someone all the way in Hawaii or anywhere else in the world. I told him that they sit in call centers and take thousands of orders a day from a computer screen. He mentioned that the other day he could barely understand the person who took his order at Taco Bell, and he said that maybe a call center would have fixed the problem. I agreed with him, but I then went on to tell him that these young people work for minimum wage with barely a break for the entire day, and that they were expected to be completely on task for the entirety of their shift. I told him that every call was monitored and that each employee was expected to respond to red boxes on their computer screen by clicking within milliseconds to ensure efficiency. Is it worth degrading these workers to something barely better than machines to maybe increase profit? In that light, with these companies spending so much money on increasing efficiency, why not work to develop a technology that allows orders to be taken by computer rather than by a minimum wage worker? While there might be complications with ensuring accuracy, it would almost certainly decrease costs by more than hiring hundreds of thousands of minimum wage employees worldwide. There has to be a better use for those workers.

Endless of Capitalist Production

"Capitalism is like a computer virus which created by humans and destructive. Companies are infected with this virus.If they get rid of profit-making, they will not survive. Is this an endless or unavoidable situation?"

I think this is situation seem endless because by related to Rosen/Schweickart, the owner of capital in capitalist society belongs to private individual. All the management or purposes of company are decided by them only. Worker cannot give an opportunity to decide or protect their right by the management. Workers always paid taxes or rent to the company to ensure that they not lost their jobs. The capitalist shareholders just only want the profit-making in their goals. They decide to invest anywhere in the world where provide the low wage of labor. Today, the competition to control and have the power over economy is the main aspect for almost the company in capitalism. They must organize and find other alternatives to maintain their performance and control in business because there are so much new companies are growth.

The technology also makes the profit-making never endless because it destroys the occupation and the management exercise control over the labor process. The fast growth and development of technology make the company to apply the new machine or tool in their management and production process. Based on the Greenbaum, she said that the technology not just changes the management objectives, but the basic thing is to reduce labor costs and increasing productivity were still paramount. For example, the word-processing programs were there designed for input speed rather than for formatting and editing. There are serious problem regarding to this technology because, it will result of the failure of technical specialist to take seriously the "invisible hand" like the clerk or general office work. What about variety of new modern technology that will create in the future effect on the division of labor and employee monitoring? Is there the company just need only a few workers to do the manufacture the product because many machines and tools are used to operate the process? There will guarantee it would be.

Charlie Chaplin - Modern times

The first thing that I felt when saw this scene was very hilarious. It was hilarity' scene when I saw a worker, Chaplin together with other workers showed their attitude in the factory to wrench or twist the bolt in electro steel components. This scenes was really showed how does capitalist economic required profit-making (M-C-M'). The president of company forced his supervisor or controller to speed up the speed of machine of conveyor belt to increase the production steel components. The workers did not allow having some rest during their working time even to smoke for a while. It was an unethical for the workers to felt free and to get their right during work. Refer to the Braverman describes toward the Taylorist principles (division of labor), the work condition in this movies was seem connected to the second principle of division of labor which is separation of conception and execution. This means that there is separation of mental and manual labor in division of labor and the manager just want the de-skilled workers to work in their company. The main purpose for the manager was to cheapen the workers by decreasing their training and enlarging the production of company. So, are there any benefit come from the division of labor toward the workers? I does not really clear and see the workers gain from these divisions.

The technology also responsible for changes in the work people do relates to the Greenbaum. For example, in this scenes showed that how the salesmen for other company tried to sell their machine. The salesmen seemed to influence the president's planning by said that this machine could reduce the cost of company to pay the wage for the office worker who employed to bring food or drink to him. Are technologies will reduce the worker employment in the future? If this statement is true, it is not impossible for the rich people become richer and the poverty widespread all over world. This scene also related to the Baase said about the "Employee Monitoring". For example, Chaplin swapped the card to the time clock before enter to the restroom in this scene. This truly showed that the total worked have long been monitored by the technology. Supervisor listened to the president through the electronic monitoring screen to follow his enforcements. Are worker free or unfree and what about the workers' capacities when manager exercises control over the labor process? I just always think that the workers are unfree in the labor process because they not gain anything from the technology available and the manager monitor.

Dalis Collins

10/9/08

After reading Braverman’s and Greenbaum’s accounts of the nature of work and the influence of technology, I began to ponder my first job: a veterinary assistant. I started working for a new clinic within months of it opening when I was 15. I worked 40+ hours a week (probably illegal). The next summer I go back to work again.

Same place, same job but totally new experience. Before I had much more freedom. As one of 2 veterinary assistants and the only other employee besides the vet a vet tech, I was constantly being critique and monitored in my work personally by the vet or her husband. The next summer instead of personal monitoring there were check off sheets that each person had to initial when a task was completed Looking back, it was there way of exerting control over workers. Also, when I first started working there was a time log sheet so you wrote in your hours. The next summer, there was a computer program where you entered a special code that was used to keep track of the your hours.

While I was subject to no direct monitoring often like the workers at the McDonalds call center, I realize now I saw first hand management working out ways to control workers. The next summer it was actually much easier to get by with slacking off because now there were 5 other veterinary assistants/receptionists/kennel workers. The first summer I worked I got to participate in a larger variety of activities as I was at times the only other person besides the vet at the clinic. With the influx of more workers, my job responsibilities shrank and I no longer did things like schedule patients and write up charts.While work was still monitored, no longer was it on an individual basis except for the tasks that had to be initialed and even then that paper was often conveniently thrown away before management saw it when all the tasks were completed.

I also saw the influence of technology and its capabilities to revolutionize a workplace. When I first started, there were no online records and the only thing the computer was used for was scheduling. Prescriptions were typed up on paper and taped to vials. Now there is a computer in every exam room making the whole business paperless. Anything entered into the computer is recorded with the initials of who entered it. This is an attempt to monitor people but even then there are so many different activities going on, it is difficult. Labels are printed out in accordance to the amount charged on the invoice.

Dalis Collins

10/7/08
Economic Democracy

I think that Economic democracy seems plausible to work. That does not mean I want to change from capitalism. The government has proven time and time again that it can not manage much of anything efficiently or well if public education or welfare (2 social constructs) are any indication. Why then would we want to place the burden of investment in it? The government is currently running a deficit of $10,198,093,771,240.92. If you look around offices in the senate, almost every office has a sign outside of it calculating the debt per person for that state.

If any company ran like that, it would go bankrupt and fold. Also, while the system is a nice idea, there is no proposal for transition. It is like Social security. In all likihood, I will see nothing I am currently investing or will invest in it by the time I might need it, yet I am forced to pay into it. However even though most people realize it, it is the holy grail of politics, virtually untouchable. Why? Because no one knows how to get rid of it. There have been proposals for replacements but what about people who are currently relying on it.

How will the initial communal capital be obtained? Taxes of course, but what to do about all the private funds still in circulation. Bill Gates may be the richest man in America, but he did come by it honestly. He was raised in an upper middle class family. How are you going to strip him of all that money? Also the social tarrif is nice to equalize goods from overseas and keep the market competitive, but often those countries are poor because of corrupt and inefficient governments. Who are you going to give that kickback to in order to promote social good? Not the government I hope.

Democracy has been shown to work on a national level only if people are educated about the system which is compulsory in US schools currently. I would in fact argue that often most people are not educated enough about the issues to make an informed vote. Hell, the number of people that do vote compared to the number eligible is appalling. How is this going to transition to business? It seems like it would make for a poorly run company if less than 1/3 of its workers voted (although maybe this is good b/c the non voters might have been even less informed).

It seems to me like there are inherent flaws in the systems that could potentially outweigh the benefits. I would need to see a structured transition plan before I would even consider changing our whole economic system.

The Long-Distance Journey of a Fast-Food Order

I think that the new technology being used to take fast-food orders is incredible and ridiculous at the same time. It is incredible that new levels of technology allow for these call centers for taking orders that can be many miles from the actual restaurant, yet ridiculous that minor issues such as cutting milliseconds off order time is what we're aiming to improve. As we discussed in class, how far will we go in our technological advances? What else can be done to maximize profit?
That is not to say I disagree with the idea, though. The article talks about various McDonald's restaurants making use of call centers to take orders. The purpose of this is to save time and perhaps increase profit through efficiency and increased focus of the workers on their task of taking orders. The article does not say thus far that the stations have made much of a difference in profit-making. Rather, the article only suggests about the money that could be gained from this if the call centers persist. I think that there is no harm in using these call stations and that if we have the technology to do it, why not use it? The only downfall mentioned in the article is trouble hearing orders occasionally and minor mix-ups because of customer confusion. These negatives seem very minimal when compared to the good that could come of this. Also mentioned as driving factors of remote order-taking are improvement in customer service and the lowering of barriers in language and communication, by being able to hire people solely for the job of taking orders who speak clear and distinct English. I think that these call centers are an interesting innovation and I am curious to see what will come of them.

Summer Job

This past summer was my third year to work as a lifeguard at a local pool close to my house. I've been with three different pool companies each summer, the most recent being Greater Nashville Pool Management Company. Having worked at this pool longer than any other guard that applied this summer, I was appointed the position of Head Lifeguard, that is, the lifeguard in charge of all the others. I had to do many other extra tasks that the other lifeguards weren't responsible for, yet I did get paid more than the others.
In Labor and Monopoly Capital by Harry Braverman, the author discusses the concept of division of labor. This involves the separation of the conception of tasks from the execution of the actual tasks. I would say that my job as head lifeguard followed Braverman's outline of the workplace fairly well. I was in charge of making sure tasks were carried out. In doing so, I assigned various jobs to the other lifeguards daily yet I myself did not always participate. I would be considered Braverman's "professional" and the other lifeguards "nonprofessionals." For example, we had to check chlorine levels hourly. I usually kept tabs on what the level was at so that it could be adjusted accordingly. If I observed the level was too high, I would send another lifeguard to turn down the chlorinator. If I observed the level was too low, I would send another lifeguard to add shock to the deep end. This agrees with the first Taylorist principle "dissociation of the labor process from the skills of the workers" in the reading. Also, our labor was divided in that I assigned different tasks to different guards based on my knowledge of what they were able to do. This agrees with Braverman's description of "division of labor in detail." It is interesting how my summer job parallels Braverman's take on jobs.

Prejudiced Schweickart Stuff

Schweickart's article does serve to make several good points about capitalism, namely showing the numerous people laying in the wake of capitalist idealists, but his arguments seem to stretch numbers and ignore some of human tendencies that make capitalism the best option in my views. The main metaphor that Schweickart uses is the idea of what a carnival would look like if everyone's size was determined relative to their income. This did serve to illustrate how very top heavy America's economy is in today's modern world, but this doesn't always have to be a negative factor for capitalism. Sure, as a small 2-3 foot member in this parade it wouldn't really seem fair that any one person could amass the miles high status that Bill Gates enjoys, but is it really such a problem that the capitalist system allows someone to do well providing that they have the skills to do so. As prejudice or "White man's Burden-esque" it may sound, I believe that if you possess the means to make money you really shouldn't be penalized or carry a guilty conscience for making the most of it. The tax system in the United States is harsh enough in my opion with the 35% at its highest reaches. I'm sure I'm sounding bigoted now, but I believe that if you're making that much money either you or your ancestors were skilled enough to deserve it, and it is your duty to give charitably enough to help out the lower classes. While not all of the lower classes deserve their poverty in any way shape or form, I'm a firm believer that anyone who tries hard enough can get ahead in life. Everyone in my family has at some point lived at or near the poverty line and through the virtue of hard work we've made ourselves to the position that they are at now.

The Ethics

Ethics is a theory that connects with proposes of action and argument that means for our thinking. I think ethics is not associate with the facts or human physical but ethics is one of moral philosophy which relate to the action and human think. According to the Gordon Hull, the foundation of ethics is related to two main aspects which are consequences and deontology. The consideration in ethics, individuals not just analysis on their actions is correct or wrong but they should analysis in their characters which can be wrong or right. For example, one person attempted to safe a woman from stealing by the robbers. He was fought against the robbers without thinking about his safety. Finally, he was killed by the robbers but the woman ran away from the incident place.

The action that had taken by that man should be proud because he sacrificed his life for other person's life. It is difficult to believe that he wishes to sacrifice himself because he can think that he might die if he just only one person fighting with many robber. Fortunately, we can understand that he has some self-interest characteristic to help another people although he did not gain any benefit from sacrifice his life. As we were learned in class before, he may have some 'ethical utilitarianism' characteristic that he felt very proud about himself to do some happiness in general. What can you imagine if everyone in the world has egoism? Of course, there is not happiness in our lives and lead the unethical behavior widespread in the world.

What is the important thing that leads a life of virtual and ethical? I think that the person who has wisdom because he or she know that what visions or goal that his or her can achieve. A person who has wisdom will control his or her emotion very well while show the suitable balance in reasoning, feeling, and desire. The wisdom behavior is very important to relate with the freedom and right of mankind. The ability to make sensible decisions and judgments based on the personal knowledge and experience will preserve every human right and freedom if everyone has this character.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a documentary that explores the EV1 electric car created by General Motors in the early 90s. The clip we watched in class about this film angered me very much. Why would perfectly well-working cars be destroyed? The EV1 car was introduced in the 1990s and was made available to lease in Southern California. It worked great and everyone who used it was very satisfied. Soon after its production, all of the EV1 cars were taken and destroyed. The film makers tracked down camps where these cars were being destroyed. The people who worked at the different car lots where the cars were destroyed were very vague about why the cars were destroyed in the first place. Capitalists believe that useful things are not necessarily produced if they do not produce capital. Though this holds true for those interested in earning money, what about the people of the world concerned with saving fossil fuels and being smart about their spendings? What a waste it is to destroy these electric cars! Capitalism makes production all about the profit and not about the quality. Apparently General Motors was concerned about the oil and car industries decrease if the electric car was manufactured and produced. General Motors also argued that there was not a high demand for the electric car, though the film shows that GM never responded to EV1 drivers' offers to pay the 1.9 million release value for the car. It seems unfair that large businesses have so much impact and control over simple things such as why we drive the cars we drive.

Schweickart and Inequality

Schweickart’s take on capitalism begins with a look at the “facts.” He uses the clever analogy of a parade where each person’s height is related to his or her income. He notes that the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income, but his point is striking nonetheless. His analogy really highlights the problem with inequality. He shows that millions of households are below the average income level with many of those even under the poverty line. These people are very short, and they make up the bulk of the parade. In order to stress the inequality of income in America, he then speaks about the super wealthy. These people are very few in number, but they tower over the majority in height. Some of these people are earning $50,000-$100,000 per hour, five to ten more than others earn in a full year. Bill Gates stands 90 miles high, making it hard to argue that there isn’t a huge income gap between the wealthy and the poor who stand only a foot off the ground. Schweickart’s message is hard-hitting because he doesn’t call for a radical answer. He doesn’t suggest that inequality should be completely erased. His point makes sense because he says that inequality is not a problem in itself, it is only a problem because it is so extreme in nature. I tend to agree with him in that something should be done to decrease the income and wealth gap if possible, but on the other hand my conservative nature forces me to consider the alternative. The people at the end of the parade not only fuel our economy [insert jab about raising capital gains taxes], but they are also some of our nations great philanthropists. Bill Gates has donated billions to charity, and while he may be something of an exception, it might be in the best interest of our capitalist economy to not seek a way to redistribute wealth in any radical form.

Consumer Fettishism

I found today’s discussion on capitalism very interesting. I have always accepted capitalism as the norm and had not really considered other alternatives, however, the idea that people serve capitalism instead of capitalism serving people is definitely worth thinking about. We discussed the negative effects of capitalism and profit-seeking on consumers, workers, the environment, animals, health, equality, and unemployment and via the Pollan readings and class discussions, it does seem that capitalism certainly influences all of the above. However, what is the most disturbing is what we talked about today, specifically what lies behind the products that we desire to fulfill our “needs.” This brings back an idea from Wheen’s discussion on Marxism and what Marx called “consumer fetishism.” The idea is that pure capitalism fails because it does not account for people’s extreme desire for commodities like the iPhone or iPod. When we consider the amount of labor, exploitation, and suffering that goes into making these products, do we really need these luxuries? Is it worth it? At first glance, the answer may be yes, they’re a lot of fun. I know that I personally own tons of things that I certainly don’t need. But when we consider the implicit cost of such items, especially of something like diamonds, the answer clearly should be “no.” At the risk of sounding cliché, our society has simply trained and convinced us to believe that we do need these things. The scary thing is that, while we may not know the human costs to items like clothing and corn, the horrors of the diamond trade have been public knowledge for years, yet we continue to desire them. The companies that exploit low wage workers argue that they do it to compete with their competitors, but the truth is that we as consumers control the fates of those workers.

Klein on the Discarded Factory

Today, many of the multinational companies are competing together to in their business to do 'profit- marking'. Brand is basically refers to the famous products that usually manufacture by the multinational company. John Ermatinger, president of Levi Strauss Americans division explain that " Our strategy plan in North America is to focus intensely on brand management, marketing, and product design as meet the casual clothing wants and need of consumers". This explain why their company's decision to shut down twenty-two plants and lay off 13, 000 North American workers between November 1997 and February 1999. This is one of example of big company just focus on the needs of their brands, as opposed the need of their workers. They signify their plants to research the new places in the world to expand their company. The profit-making that that put out by the capitalism encourages the owner to make the 'M-C-M' which is surplus- value in gain more money from the commodity. Where they right for workers to get some income for their daily life? Why only the some class of person refer to the rich people like the owner of the company gain all the profit but the worker just only fulfill their necessary needs? I am not thinking that the profit is not necessary for the industrial and business but these will diminish other person right. The companies have a power to control and interfere with the liberty of workers because the political economy regard to the capitalism philosophy state that the government should have minimum function in the economy field. The ' free-market' concept is used to build competition between human to develop their business with a little government regulation. According to Hospers on the concept of libertarian freedom, government just acts as protector of the citizen against aggression by other individual. Then, what about the monopoly of company to their workers? Is the government not having a power to protect other person's freedom to work? I do not agree with the concept of political economy by capitalism because the natural rights are more important than political rights. Refer back to the Klein, more factory closure each week and 45000 U.S apparel workers lost their jobs in 1997 alone.

The modern technology also influent in reduce the right of people especially the workers. Brand-name multinational company like Nike, Champion, IBM and Levi's not interested in budgeting for labor but focus on the innovation and marketing the huge number of their product in the worldwide. We can see many of factory use almost machines and tools to create and assemble the products. The products will become "surplus and low prices" affected the uses of technology in industrial. Of course, logically the manufactures and people both gain benefits from this condition. So, what about the workers who will lose their job because the companies want to open the new factory in the other countries which the rate of wage for workers is very low? Absolutely, people will not have their right to buy the stuffs which are very necessary in their lives. The modern technology is seemed to reduce the natural right of people to carry out activities. I become worry if the lower classes of people in the world will not have any job because almost the manufacture factory use these modern machines and tools to assemble their product.

Refer to the journey by Klein to the Rosario in Philippines, there have a place called Cavite Export Processing Zone which one of the free-trade zone in the world. At there, all the multinational companies build their factory which cause will cause Rasario, the town's busy. By the way, the Rosario has all the problems of industrial such as air pollution and the river sewage. So, how about the responsibility of people toward the preserve of environment? It is unethical for company to development their industrials while at the same time destroy and pollute the environment. Human should think and study about the ecological logic before do any actions that connect to the non-living thing.

Hopsers on Libertarian Freedom

Hospers had some interesting ideas on libertarianism. He says that everyone has the right to act as they want as long as they don't hinder others from acting as they want. This sounded fair enough to me as I read his article, and made me want to read more. Next he goes on to state that the only proper role of the government in our nation is as "protector of the citizen against aggression by other individuals." A minimal "watchman" government sounded great to me. I can think of times that I've seen on the news when the government seems to have crossed this borderline. The idea that the government should only protect people from harm and not interfere in their lives in any way seemed catchy at first thought. Another interesting point that Hospers brings up is the question of why some are taxed to provide for others. If an individual works hard and makes a good living as a result of his work, why should he have to provide for another person? Hospers supports an economic "free-market" system, with little or no government regulation. These ideas, though simple, seemed to make perfect sense.
After discussion in class, a new outlook on these ideas entered my mind. What would things be like in Hospers' world? Right now, the government regulates many different aspects of our lives. Could we possibly survive without all of this regulation? The government regulates roads, water treatment, schools, hospitals, law, and infrastructure, just to name a few things. Without these regulations, I don't think we could possibly be a civil and functioning nation. Having everything privately owned by separate businesses would call for competition and in turn corruption. The government regulates from an unbiased point of view, and if everything were to be privately owned, different intentions of big businesses would be inevitable. The quality of the now government-regulated entities would in turn decrease in an unregulated, capitalistic world.

X MarX the spot

Our recent discussion of Marxism and the general analysis of capitalism have really opened my eyes to some of the less talked about and negative aspects of capitalism. While I do agree with the majority of Marx's analysis of modern society, it seems that some of his logical progressions can not quite go forward in our current state of affairs. However, his view of the violent capitalist cycle hit pretty close to home. I had always seen my dad come in after work, constantly tired from working his ass off in a constant battle to sell the most ads, develop the newest gimmick to get the most page views, or cut the unneeded workers all in the strive to make his newspaper the most profitable possible. No matter how well the paper was doing, he would always push for more profit. Marx's analysis of our money driven economy seems to be incredibly accurate. In our modern world, everything seems to boil down to how to make the most profit, how to get the biggest market share or how to get ahead of the curve. Until now I never saw the need to put out this much effort to revise an already profitable newspaper, but without constant upgrading and growth a company simply can't exist for long in today's market.


All this said and done, Marx did seem to hit the nail right on the head in his analysis but his ideas regarding revision seem a little idealistic. To do anything but capitalism in today's society would require an incredible overhaul of both government and social hierarchy. This is where the communist association seems to taint his ideas, as it is almost impossible to think of governmental overhaul and Marxism without thinking of the U.S.S.R. 's attempts on the subject. While the goal might be good in attempting to move our economy in a C-M-C style, doing so would be incredibly difficult without power somehow sliding into the wrong hands. No matter how corrupt capitalism seems to be at times, the alternative could land us in a lot more trouble. As negative as the constant dog eat dog profit search may seem, it does provide a clear goal, and goals tend to make my life easier. I could live with a constant profit search as my life goal, it is better than a goal of survival.

Intersting Points on Marxism

After today’s class discussion I decided to go back and re-listen to the radio interview on Marx and write about some of the things I found interesting. I didn’t know much about Marx beyond the Communist Manifesto, so I found a lot of his points worth writing down. First, I liked Wheen’s description of Marxism as a way of trying to understand the world through questioning everything, not as a set way of doing things. He described it as a descriptive idea rather than a prescriptive idea and even though communism as a prescriptive idea failed, Marx’s ideas are still very applicable and can be used to question any system. I also liked Marx’s descriptions of capitalism. After thinking about it for a while, describing capitalism as a system of “creative destruction” seems surprisingly fitting. The need for competition to constantly increase production and efficiency within organizations while at the same time seeking to destroy competition to increase market share is a very interesting view on the inherent instability of a capitalist society. Finally, I wanted to comment on the capitalism as Frankenstein idea. I thought it was a very interesting, albeit simplified and abstract, concept. Wheen described Marx’s view on capitalism as a monster created by humans that has come to life through the form of commodities. In the process, the humans are reduced to the level of simple machines of production and the objects become more “human” than the workers. The thought that capitalism was created by humans and is now out of our control and destructive seems especially significant now, given the current state of our market. Greed and the constant drive for profit led to subprime loaning and subsequently the debt crisis that is responsible for the mess that our economy is in.

Corn

I found it interesting that in all his discussion of corn, corn as actual fuel is never mentioned. My dad used to work for BP and Amaco. It always amazed him that people thought they were helping the environment by buying fuel made from corn. Looking at the overall inputs, it is more energy intensive and expensive to make fuel from corn that it is from refinement of oil. It strips the soil of natural resources and produces less energy. I wonder if this is the same grade corn (2) discussed in the paper or if it is even a lower grade. While the sugar cane derivative fuel is very stable and efficient, over 90% of the ethanol fuel in this country is made of corn. There are the same government incintives for this use of corn making the same destructive cycle of: corn floods market, drop in prices, government covers costs, yeilding more corn. You cannot blame the farmers. If someone would pay me to make something whether or not it was ever put to good use (or any use at all) and I needed the money, I would make all of it I could.

As Pallon states, this problem is creating new health risks. The overuse of antibiotics is a huge concern currently, and the beef market is only making it worse by the continual use of antibiotics in feed. Pathogenic bacteria like E. Coli 0157:H7 and MRSA were unheard of 30 years ago, yet I know two people that are currently being treated for one of these. The scary part is that this is just the beginning. It will only get worse.

However destructive the corn industry is, there is a true need for cheap food in this country at this time. Buying organic and local is nice in theory, but when cucumbers are 2 for $7.00 (go to the Franklin Farmers Market and see for yourself), it is impractical. Side Note: The Nashville Farmers Market is organic but not local, some of that food is shipped from 5,000 miles away, while all the food from the Franklin's farmers market is from 150 miles away or less. Until there are more incentives to buy local and organic, it is only for the relatively wealthy that this is even an option. Once again, the poor are delegated to the worst available yeilding more health problems, yeilding more costs, resulting in people caught in a cycle of poverty. Diabetes and obesity in this country are at an all time high. Ironically, people are working more hours in the work week than ever before. It is a vicious cycle and corn is barely the tip of the iceburg.

Intrinsic Good

The more I thought about intrinsic good, the more it seemed like an axiom in math. An axiom is a statement that cannot be proved but which all other mathematical laws/proofs are based upon like -1*x = -x. It is essentially a made up concept that we accept to be true. Other things are then true that we can prove using rational logical arguments that are based on this singular pillar of thought. I tend to view intrinsic good with a deontilogical (?) perspective. Humans have rights as humans. They are entitled to certain things because people have a basic self-worth. I work for the Vanderbilt Campus Chapter for Habitat for Humanity and our mission statement says "We believe that everyone has the right to simple, decent, and affordable housing." That's it the end. There are no buts. As a person with this belief, I realize all my arguments against other philosophical theories are based in this and therefore biased by it. As I read Foner's writings on freedom, it led me to question if this would be my belief if I grew up somewhere else. Founding fathers, Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance... How could these thoughts of personal rights and responsibilities not have affected me? I would like to say I would believe this no matter where I was from, but that is a dim view of reality. Who is to say if I was from Japan and had stronger ties to honor? Who is to say what we beleive is not just constructs of where we were raised and what we experienced?