Green & Dewey

As i read the excerpt by Green i really started to think about the inner conflicts that arise from ideologies. That the society as a whole is always going to be interdependent on eachother, and that no matter what if one person in a community is affected, everyone is. The conflict of the ideology came up with me when i read about all of this connected to freedom. That we are only free from nature if we give up some of our freedom to a governemnt. This was interesting to me. The point he made when he asking the question, Wouldall of the rules and regulations we have through legislation come about naturally without legislation? was a very good point. This idea relates back to hobbes, saying that without rule, society would be barbaric. But there is also the conflicting idea coming from Adam Smith that people naturally benefit together for the greater good. This reading really got me going onto the inner conflicts of ideologies.

The three observations that Dewey made were that: 1) Liberty is Power, not just an idea. 2) The power of liberty can only be legitimized if it can be related. and 3) Liberty is way of setting restraint and controls at a time. he had some points that sort of went against Green's. One of them was that you do not have to sacrifice liberty in order to recieve social control. While one f greens main points was that it was necessary. I liked Deweys last point about social control, that we do have it, but it is in the hands of those who have economic power, which leads to the deprivation of others liberties, and causes other social issues. This idea made me think about how we are given all of these freedoms in our society today, but so many other things control our community, locally and nationally.

How we work together

Smiths main ideas about labor are pretty simple. he talks about the productivity of a pin making manufacturer. In this example he talks about how much more is achieved through coopeation rather than individual work. people will make exponentially more pins tan ones who work alone. These ideas that smith has can apply to anything that we see even in our own lives. If we work together we will acomplish more than if we work on our own. people will always be able to come together and acomplish more.

As for the question of motivation to cooperate and interdependence. people have always know that things have been more productive together. People will unify to accomplish things because they know it will be easier. Cooperation away leads to accomplishment. and all people across the world have known this theory.

People in our society do depend on eachother constantly, which goes both ways. We see people work off of eachother, working well together. But we also see projects collapse because people become too dependent on eachother. There are advances and drawbacks to both. People work as a unit, when all togehter it is productive, but without one part things can crumble

9/23-March of the Flag & Platform of the American...

I thought it was interesting how the idea of imperialism can relate to Hobbes' ideas. That people are better off being governed without consent. That they are doing them a favor, kond of how hobbes thought that people without absolutle rule cannot function. The justification for imperialism in the march of the flag seems to be rather similar to the justification of slavery. That giving slaves a place to stay and food is something they would be incapable of having otherwise. That they are being done a favor. As for the Anti Imperialist League, i thought Lincoln quote was a good counter:

"no man is good enough to govern another man without
that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he
governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government-that is
despotism."

the ideas that the league hold true to are those of the constitution. They believe that all men are created equal and under no circumstances can that be overruled.

Declaration of Womens Rights

From the start i knew that this was going to be similar to Douglass's just based off of what Prof. Dietz said on webct. I thought of this one to be more critical of what was happening with human rights and the nation. That douglass praised the accomplihmets of the nation, while still explaining the faults of it. But while this declaration ponted out many cases where our nation has been unjust and unfair to women, and how hypocritical we are while we do it. I think its interesting that in the 24 years that the two speeches have between them, the same points are still involved and the same arguement is being made on a different front. The articles of impeachment give examples to what is controvercial about each sectio of the country, and how each part is hypocritical. In the final section the arguement that women have always hadthe same inteests as men, that they havent been sitting quietly off to the side. And if the injustice pursues, the country will fail