While delivering his ruling in the case of Regents v. University of California v. Bakke, Justice Harry Blackmum, a judge of the US Supreme Court, upheld the decision by institutions of higher learning to use race as one of the guiding factors in selecting qualified students to join college.
The court ruled out that the practice by the medical school at the University of California at Davis to preserve positions for less-privileged minority students in each entering class was unlawful. Justice Blackmum noted that in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.
There is no other way (Cornell University Law School, n. d.). I do not agree with this statement because it appears to suggest that ones identity is judged by his/her race and that when judging someone potential or character, race should be a guiding factor.
If at all we intend to end racism, we must learn how to judge people based on their character, skills, and identity. We must also stop evaluating people based on their race. Racisms involve grouping people based on their ethnicity or color of their skin. It also involves taking action on racial grounds.
By definition, racism means taking account of race. Based on this definition, Justice Blackmum appears to suggest that we must be racists in order to end racism. This is not only immoral, but also illogical.
We should always endeavor to judge people by the content of their character, as opposed to the color of their skin. That this statement means is that we should not use skin color to evaluate the moral stature or competence of other men.
For example, we should not use skin color as a factor in admitting people to institutions of higher learning on in hiring them. Instead, we should admit students or hire people based on their competence, qualifications, and skills possessed. However, in our modern society, this appears to be far from the case.
Color preference seems to have replaced color blindness. Inasmuch as we may try to appear rational, there is no denying it that affirmative action entails a lot of racism (Bobo, 1998). Affirmative action promotes racism, in that it tries to please one group of people in the society at the expense of another group.
In case society decides to adopt a colorblind approach, we may end up losing more than we are likely to gain from this approach. For example, because the colorblind approach hinges on the premises that race should not and does not matter, we stand to lose all that we might have gained by identifying with a different culture.
In addition, we need to appreciate the fact that because all of us perceive the world differently, this is what adds spice to life.
By adopting a colorblind approach through affirmative action, we risk losing this valuable possession. Nobody benefits from or desires the sameness ideals promoted across cultures by our colorblind attitudes (Neville et al, 2000). For instance, if we embrace a blind society, we could end up losing our ethnic identity.
There is a clear distinction between color blindness and equality. Proponents of color blindness try to argue that all of us are equal by promoting affirmative action. Consequently, they attempt to mould individuals so that they can fit their description of equality.
In the process, they turn a blind eye to those values and capabilities that they would not wish to be associated with and embrace the qualities of an individual that they would want to be identified with. In contrast, equality refers to the ability to appreciate our various experiences, perspectives, abilities, and talents, in a diverse society.
Several authors have warned society against trying to adopt a color0blind attitude since different groups of people views different situations differently. Those who are keen on achieving a color blind society seems to ignore that fact that our society is deeply racialized.
Reference List
Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 985-1003.
Neville, H. Lilly, R., Duran, G., & Lee, Brown, L. (2000). Construction and Initial Validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59-70.
While looked at broadly, all societies require an educational system. The youth have to be taught of what they are likely to face on their way to maturity. When looked at this way, then it becomes clear that socialization and education are no different. However, in numerous preliterate cultures, such difference is not made.
Savage inequality is a book that is written by Jonathan Kozol in concern of schools in the urban centers as well as the citizenship sense. In his journey that takes him two years, Kozol investigates the scenery of the education system in the urban areas.
He presents an apparent and righteous argument in justification of intrinsic human worth and autonomous ethics, in opposition to the long-term discrimination forces and corporatism, which have been displayed in complete rampage. In the 30 towns and environs that he visited, he found that racial segregation, a destitute imposed government, and almost total communal denial were the order of the day.
Discussion
Kozol argues that, in spite of a century of lawful and governmental action, America upholds uneven and divided education system whereby the deprived that form the marginal children, debatably who warrant the most resources, obtain schooling that is qualitatively dissimilar compared to that of their whiter, richer equivalents (Kozol, 132).
The unfairness persists within metropolitan community school structures and between town and uptown districts, which form the separating lines, which were frequently drawn with openly ethicized aim. The book has been alienated into six sections in which each section takes the reader to a dissimilar part of the state.
My opinion regarding to money
The book identifies the troubles that teachers need to tackle due to inadequate financial support for schools in low-income districts. Its title means that the states negligence to the stipulation of superior communal schooling to kids is almost the same to immoral disregard.
In each section of the book, the author discloses inadequate financial support and horrible circumstances in interior town schools for instance, dripping roofs, halls submerging every occasion there is rainfall, three or four classes dividing a gymnasium or an eatery owing to lack of enough rooms, and educators having out-of-date course books and occasionally, not any at all (Kozol, 79).
I think that the story approach that Kozol employs is precious because of how much realism is misplaced, more often intentionally covered, by the strategy discussions that enclose communal education.
A regular disagreement that the writer tackles is the assertion that town scholars obtain sufficient education, and that more funds are not the answer to whatever troubles that may infect their schools. In my opinion, Kozol suggests that funds whether directly or indirectly guided to schools would make schooling a more encouraging occurrence for the kids who go to these schools.
This does not imply that more cash is a magic-bullet answer to the troubles of town communal schooling or that schooling is such an answer for superior troubles, like poverty and drugs, which face these groups of people, no. Education experts and proletarians argue that family and literary troubles add to an atmosphere where educational skills are not appreciated or taken care of.
As Kozol indicates however, the family and the school differ in the indirect irresponsibility of the government when it comes to family background imbalance. He argues that it is accountable for unfairness in communal education (Kozol 89). In addition, it breaches any version of fairness for a communal resource to be given in greater quantities to those slightest in need, the precise communal education that runs in the US.
My opinion on performance
The book indicates that deprived kids are captivated in terrible municipal schools while the middle group has options (Kozol 56). I think that money alone cannot be used as an excuse to the poor performance of children in those schools. Other family issues like solitary or no parent families, living below the poverty level, and lack of socialization thus, making them to speak little or no English, affect most of them.
The rate of drop out is very high in poor schools, which creates space for the ones who would progress to secondary school because of poor budgetary computations. In my opinion, it is hard to show that scholars are planned to fail, but it is obvious that failure is a vital constituent of planning, in every town school system in the state.
When novel classrooms and educator employments are planned, no stipulation is made for that amount of scholars whom everybody is sure will not come back. Long-range policies are founded on extrapolations of prominent failure prices. In this warped logic, the dilemma of congestion represents a surplus of achievement, while high withdrawal rates give some inhalation room.
My opinion regarding to social justice
The author aims at confronting every communal computation with a command for fairness. He insists that individual and nationality privileges overshadow conservation of an ethnic and financial position quo that, lastly, can only excuse itself on the stipulations of unprocessed authority (Kozol 127).
He unfolds the relaxed facade of uptown and boardroom courtesy, illuminating prejudice that recognizes no divisional address, but which is comprehensively American. In my opinion, chauvinists have no unique animus for Black infancy, but instead, they try to separate and make African Americans as an unenlightened entity.
The school populace is conversely, a caged state liability. In this ground, the most permanent damage can be consummated, but as well, it is within the limits of communal schooling, whereby the nationality rights fundamentals may be most forcefully campaigned in the full illumination of the day, and in the nationwide morals face.
My opinion regarding the books publication
The educational unfairness subject has no likelihood of disappearing overnight. However, the books publication has ensured that the unfairness in American educational system and strategy has unimaginable thoughtlessness that clearly and compassionately is brought to the front position of the awareness of the American populace as well as to the program of the policy-makers of the state.
The book has documented touchingly, and relentlessly the worrying unfairness in American culture, as well as given information and approach that will be able to assist the nation in moving in the direction of a more caring educational strategy.
Conclusion
Education is a vital component in the life of an individual, more so in their tender age. It cannot be differentiated from socialization since children learn from one another. In savage inequalities, the author has shown that education is not handled equally thus, creating an education gap between the poor and the rich, the white and the black.
This is unfair, as all children regardless of their family background, race, color or any other difference, deserve the same quality education. The book which indicates the problems more than offering solutions, calls for policy makers to reflect on this and come up with solutions which would be of benefit to every individual.
Works Cited
Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in Americas Schools. New York: Crown Pub, 1991. Print.
A distinctive feature of modern American society is its differences in ethical, racial, class, gender, religion, and many other characteristics. Previously, racial and political inequality manifested itself in the form of violence against a person. Today, it does not happen so clearly; nevertheless, the problem of social inequality does exist. Tolerance and political correctness triumphed in the American media, theater, and cinema, and it would seem that the issues of inequality have been resolved (Hudson, 2016). However, the evidence shows that inequality is persistent, which is expressed in healthcare, employment, living conditions, and so on. For example, the share of the uninsured varies dramatically across races: 6.7% of whites, 7.5% of Asians, 11.1% of African Americans, and 16.2% of Hispanics were without health insurance in 2015. This racial gap worsened because of COVID-19 that caused more than 46,000 deaths of African-Americans, which is twice more than those among the White population (Fitzhugh et al., 2020). In addition, George Floyds murder by a police officer is a vivid example of political inequality.
This paper aims to argue that despite the existing challenges, the American society can be racially and politically equal. Although the modern American society still suffers from racial and political inequality, it is possible to achieve justice by creating coalitions, ensuring accountability, and securing appropriate funding. The study of this issue is important to modern American politics as it directly reflects the problems and opportunities of racial and ethnic minorities. Based on the relevant literature, the paper focuses on the roles of the US government and community to promote equality. Furthermore, a potential contribution of businesses as powerful actors is discussed. The ways to achieve political and racial equality are summarized in the conclusion.
Government and Community Roles
In the US, race and politics are the two most common factors of inequality. Radical individualism, capitalism, and a lack of citizen participation deteriorate this problem (Hudson, 2016). African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans are among the key disadvantaged populations that have limited access to politics, healthcare, employment, education, and other social benefits. Various studies confirm that being white provides much more opportunities, while also preventing numerous challenges. In this case, McKinsey and Company research suggests that the government should adopt a new agenda of inclusive growth that implies advancing racial equity through the economy. Chui et al. (2021) state that the closure of the racial wealth gap would increase consumption and investment in the American economy by an additional $2 trillion to $3 trillion. Thats equivalent to 8 percent to 12 percent of US GDP (para. 4). In other words, the leaders would also benefit from achieving racial equality in terms of economics.
White social prejudice is another challenge that threatens American democracy and creates political injustice. The existence of prejudices and perceived supremacy makes people to disregard differences and consider them as otherness, which decreases the value of democracy (Miller & Davis, 2020). However, the creation of a new culture that values all races and supports equality seems to be a viable solution to this problem. For example, when the Black Lives Matter movement began, some people claimed that all lives are important.
Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to call for addressing prejudices and mistreatment in all spheres of life. The presidency of Obama, an African-American ex-president, shows that the society is ready to changes, and equality can be achieved (Allen, 2016). Recently, Obama managed to significantly reduce the share of the uninsured due to the health care reform, which Trump is still trying to cancel unsuccessfully. Moreover, the increased pro-activeness of citizens, including protest politics, is another sign of upcoming changes and improvements in terms of political justice.
Community efforts to stabilize social and economic situations are capable of effectively countering this threat. It is also worth recalling that the methods for resolving the problem should be comprehensive and impact not only the economic, but also the political and socio-cultural aspects of the issue. The political establishment needs to be clearly aware of the increased global interdependence of the participants in the modern international system, taking all necessary measures to promote justice and improve the condition of the disadvantaged populations.
Among the steps that can be taken, there is the development of national standards and metrics to evaluate the impact of federal and local policies (Chui et al., 2021). The collaboration and creation of coalitions is a solution offered by Fitzhugh et al. (2020), who insist on organizing a key group that would control all involved stakeholders, design programs, and disseminate knowledge. In addition, funding decisions should be incorporated into racial justice considerations to support evidence-based results.
Role of Businesses
Modern processes of globalization and the activities of large companies lead to even greater stratification of society, so it is worth considering whether only governments can influence the consequences of inequality. The main issue is that the desire of corporations to raise the level of social responsibility should be taken into account as an opportunity (Fitzhugh et al., 2020). To support the initiative of organizations to do charity work, as well as to push companies to help and support socially unprotected segments of the population, the cooperation between business and social responsibility is critical. In addition to achieving a high level of profit, companies leaders can take care of preserving jobs, raising the skills and knowledge of their employees (Allen, 2016). It is also important to strive for justice and equality in the availability of health care and education.
Ensuring accountability of businesses provides one more opportunity of gathering data from racial equity stakeholders to evaluate their impact on racial and political justice. This statement goes in line with the challenge of the privileged position of business that is discussed by Hudson (2016), who suggests that it causes threats to democracy. While the author claims that such a position should be changed, it can also be used for combating for equality. Namely, better ecosystems the networks of people and capital in which businesses operate can reduce these structural obstacles to building Black-owned business and add $290 billion in business equity (Chui et al., 2021). Accordingly, the advancement of racial equality becomes possible due to providing equitable access to capital. As a result, the family-wealth creation would facilitate new business capabilities for racial minorities.
In turn, it should be stressed that the reputation of a company is made up of many concepts. Confidence in a company grows if it is socially-oriented as it acts as a form of competitive advantage. Therefore, the social responsibility of business ceases to be just a waste of money, but turns into an additional means of enhancing the companys image. The problem of business participation in solving the problems of society is relevant for the US. World experience shows that the quality of life of the population and social stability largely depend on the success of the formation of a system of partnerships between private entrepreneurship, government, and civil society in social and political spheres (Allen, 2016). The effectiveness of such partnerships can be used as one more opportunity for achieving equality.
Conclusion
To conclude, several important trajectories to reduce the level of racial and political inequality can be outlined. The coordinated work of the government, companies, and citizens, as well as the social responsibility of organizations, is necessary. In addition, it is important to ensure zero tolerance for the problem of injustice and the development of citizens initiative in providing assistance and support to disadvantaged populations. Businesses can also significantly contribute to achieving political and racial equality by remaining aware of the needs of the minorities. As a result, the accomplishment of social justice would benefit not only disadvantaged citizens but also the government, businesses, and American society as a whole.
References
Allen, D. (2016). Equality and American democracy: Why politics trumps economics. Foreign Affairs, 95(1), 23-28.
Hudson, W. E. (2016). American democracy in peril: Eight challenges to Americas future (8th ed.). CQ Press.
Miller, S. V., & Davis, N. T. (2020). The effect of white social prejudice on support for American democracy. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 1-18.
The article selected for this argumentative paper is the Northern Star editorial under the title Transgender Athletes Deserve Equality. As the title implies, the authors of the article pursue the idea that transgender athletes should be given equal opportunities to participate in the divisions of genders they associate themselves with. The authors support their claim by referring to repetitive victories in the womens division and the contribution to the overall civil rights of transgender people striving for equality. However, the author of this essay partially disagrees with the support provided for the claims in the editorial. This argumentative essay is designed to prove that equality for transgender athletes will jeopardize fairness in sports, cause bias in womens division, and not reflect social concerns.
Unfair Implications for Cisgender Individuals Opportunities
The authors of the article claim that transgender athletes deserve equal representation and the right to participate in competitions in the divisions of the gender they identify themselves by referring to social structures and justice. However, such support is incomplete since it neglects the articulation of the unfair distribution of strengths among the participants, which is decisive for a proper sporting competition. Indeed, the editorial board cites Quinn, the transgender athlete who stated that they feel sad knowing there were Olympians before me unable to live their truth because of the world (Northern Star Editorial Board par. 4). However, living ones truth should not become a decisive factor in altering the rules of participants distribution based on the physical attributes that are decisive in sports. It is particularly relevant for the womens division in all kinds of sports.
Focus on Achievements in Womens Divisions Primarily
The authors of the article use the reference to the significant sporting achievements and victories of transgender people as ground-forming support for their thesis. However, one might find such evidence incomplete and biased due to the identification of predominantly womens divisions achievements. The authors state that the Canadian Womens Soccer team didnt just make history by claiming their first-ever Olympic gold medal defeating Sweden, where transgender athlete Quinn had a decisive role alongside other women transgender athletes (Northern Star Editorial Board par. 1).
Indeed, the manipulation of the victories and the promotion of the national teams in the international sporting arena creates a false picture that transgender inclusion is worthwhile and beneficial. However, the authors fail to identify the same level of achievements in the mens division, which would have made the argument well-supported and valid. This observation reflects the social perception of the problem discussed further.
The Lack of Social Support
Another inaccuracy in support of the authors claims is the manipulation of the statistical data, which reflects the under-representation of transgender rights in the public domain. Indeed, according to the editorial, only 34% of Americans support trans athletes playing on teams that match their gender identity, according to a Gallup poll from May (Northern Star Editorial Board par. 8). Thus, the perception of the society implies that the issue of providing transgender athletes the opportunity to participate in their gender-based divisions is not tentative and should not be prioritized.
Conclusion
In summation, the analyzed editorials position implies significant inaccuracies in the articulation of the claims of transgender athletes in their sports careers. In particular, the authors failed to address the fairness issues implied in the unequal physical attributes of transgender and cisgender athletes. Moreover, their support was biased due to the focus on achievements in womens divisions only, where transgender people have an advantage. Finally, the authors claimed urgency of the issue is not supported by statistics on public perception of the problem. Thus, one might not agree with the argument of the editorial based on the above-mentioned reasons.
Currently, the transgender and LGBTQ+ populations have received more rights and freedoms. However, discrimination persists to this day. To eradicate it, people need to introduce principles aimed at protecting vulnerable groups of the population. The principles of the struggle for the transgender and LGBTQ+ populations should include respect for the choice and self-identification of a person (Garretson, 2018).
For example, the number of genders and the right of people to identify themselves with one of them should be legally established. To do this, non-violent methods of attracting the attention of the population can be used. Women, in the struggle for equal rights, chained themselves to the gates or held peaceful rallies with posters near the administration buildings. The result was equal rights, the opportunity to vote in elections and equal pay.
In addition, another principle is the protection of the rights of vulnerable groups of the population at the legislative level and equating discrimination with a punishable crime. However, a fierce struggle with the use of force should be avoided (Garretson, 2018).
For example, the protests of African Americans that took place two years ago caused divisions in society due to cases of violence. As a result, they failed to sufficiently achieve the eradication of discrimination. Finally, another principle is to educate the public about transgender and LGBTQ+ populations. Lectures in schools and universities and freely available on the Internet can explain the essence of the movement and its importance. The Latin American population of the second half of the 20th century explained to the inhabitants of the country the importance of their culture. They refused to go to work, staged demonstrations and defended the traditions of their people by talking about them.
Moreover, the current Supreme Court is committed to overturning the rights that protect LGBTQ+. This is a direct violation of human rights, which should be considered on the world stage and have the character of gross discrimination. The principle in this case is counterclaims, a wider campaign to publicize the problem and appeal to the authorities. In this case, representatives of the movement will be able to get the opportunity to live in a society where equality is the fundamental pillar.
Reference
Garretson, J. J. (2018). The path to gay rights: How activism and coming out changed public opinion. NYU Press.
As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear for more and more Americans that there is something definitely wrong about the functioning of the countrys governmental institutions.
This reason for this is simple quite contrary to the official agenda of the advocates of social egalitarianism and political correctness, which during the course of recent decades have been in charge of designing Americas domestic policies, the gap between the countrys rich and poor has been widening in an exponential progression to the flow of time (Miringoff & Miringoff 152). Yet, there are good reasons to believe that this is happening not due to the policy-makers lack of enthusiasm in promoting the concept of a welfare state.
Quite on the opposite this is taking place because the currently deployed approaches to ensuring a social fairness within the society are based upon utterly unscientific assumption of citizens equality, regardless of what happened to be the specifics of their genetically predetermined rate of Intellectual Quotidian (IQ). In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length.
One of the main argumentations, as to what causes a growing number of Americans to suffer from poverty, deployed by neo-Marxian social scientists, is the assumption that the countrys GNP continues to be unequally distributed among citizens (Rawls 245).
In its turn, this causes many left-wing politicians to suggest that, in order for the rate of inequality within the American society to be kept under control, the government should consider hiring more bureaucrats, whose job would be concerned with ensuring a fair distribution of the national wealth among underprivileged Americans.
Some of these politicians go as far as proposing the institutialization of the so-called Peace Department, the representatives of which would be endowed with the executive powers to exercise an administrative control over the functioning of the countrys free-market economy all for the sake of advancing the cause of equality (Cronkite par. 4).
Nevertheless, even though that the equality-obsessed social scientists prove themselves thoroughly insightful, once the distribution of wealth is being concerned, they appear to lack the basic understanding of what causes the GNP to be generated, in the first place, and what accounts for the discursive aspects of the wealths generation in a post-industrial era.
This partially explains these peoples unawareness of the fact that, as of today, the value of human capital continues to increase; whereas, the value of physical capital is steadily declining (Milanovic 7). And, it is specifically the varying measure of peoples endowment with the ability to operate with utterly abstract categories (intellect), which defines the extent of their objective value, as human resources.
The reason for this is apparent the more a particular individual is being capable of relying on its intellect, while facing life-challenges, the more he or she is capable of acting as the agent of a technological progress. And, the more a particular countrys economy is being technologically-intense, the less it requires natural resources to sustain its continual functioning. Nowadays, peoples intellect has assumed the subtleties of a physical capital, in the literal sense of this word.
Therefore, contrary to what the hawks of equality suggest, there is nothing unnatural about the fact that; whereas, software designers are being commonly paid as much as $500 per hour, the countrys manual laborers (whose number is growing, due to the multiculturalism policy) rarely receive more than $10 for an hour of their work.
The objective principles of the free-market economy functioning determine such a state of affairs not the money-greedy capitalists. In its turn, this explains the continual growth of the so-called red market, where people sell their bodily organs for money (Carney 32). Apparently, being unable to sell their intellect, impoverished people from the Third world countries are left with no choice but to sell the parts of their bodies in full accordance with the Darwinian laws (Dillard 6).
Yet, in the light of recent discoveries in the fields of biology and genetics, these peoples continual poverty (and consequently, their willingness to sell their organs) cannot be solely explained by the fact that they have been denied an opportunity to receive a good education. Rather, this situation reflects the fact that, due to the specifics of these peoples genetic makeup, the rate of their IQ is doomed to remain very low hence, making it impossible for them to attain a social prominence.
Given the fact that, due to the institutionalization of the celebration of diversity policy in this country, America is now being flooded with legal and illegal immigrants from the Third World, known for their unsurpassed talent in baby-making, there is nothing utterly surprising about the fact that, as time goes on, the educational and living standards in this country continue to deteriorate rapidly. In its turn, this contributes even more to the problem of inequality.
However, instead of admitting the scientifically proven fact that the very laws of biological evolution (which apply to the representatives of Homo Sapiens species, as much as they apply to plants and animals) expose the fallaciousness of the assumption of peoples de facto equality, the governmental officials prefer to remain in the state of an intellectual denial, in this respect. Consequently, this causes them to address the problem of inequality extensively.
That is, instead of revealing the inequalitys objectively predetermined roots, they simply strive to conceal its true causes by the mean of legislating a number of equality promoting policies (such as the affirmative action) and subjecting citizens to the censorship of political correctness (Valenzuela par. 4).
Moreover, in order to be able to finance the implementation of their equality facilitating policies, these politicians meddle with the functioning of Americas free-market economy, while trying to turn the U.S. into an essentially Socialist state. Yet, as it was implied by Gladwell, the idea that the capitalist economy can be simultaneously free and supervised/planned is conceptually wrong, because it does not take into account the Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, which defines the very essence of the universes workings (164).
As a result, the economys functioning continues to become ever more inefficient, which negatively affects the process of the GNPs generation hence, reducing the amount of wealth that is supposed to be equally shared among underprivileged citizens and establishing objective prerequisites for them to continue suffering from poverty.
I believe that the provided line of argumentation is being fully consistent with the papers initial paper. Apparently, in order for American policy-makers to be able to set this country on the path of becoming socially fair, they would have to reassess the validity of the ideology-driven paradigm of peoples equality. The reason for this is simple it would make possible for politicians to adopt a scientific approach towards increasing the extent of ordinary citizens economic well-being.
Works Cited
Carney, Scott. The Red Market: On the Trail of the Worlds Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers, and Child Traffickers. New York: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.
Cronkite, Walter. A Department Of Peace? Web.
Dillard, Annie. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. New York: Buccaneer Books, 1974. Print.
Gladwell, Malcolm, 2002, Blowing Up. Web.
Milanovic, Branco, 2011, More or Less. PDF file. Web.
Miringoff, Marc and M. Miringoff. The Social Health of the Nation: How America Is Really Doing. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
The occurrence of socio-political and economic factors causes a sense of inequality among different social groups and classes. The question of equality gives rise to the concept of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a theory that affirms equality for all people on political, social, and economic grounds. Egalitarians perceive all human beings as equals without exceptions. In addition, egalitarians seek to eradicate all the inequalities and discrimination based on ones race, gender, age, and social class among other factors. Liberal egalitarianism pursues justice by advocating equality, individual freedom, and personal obligations.
Unlike strict egalitarianism, which approaches inequalities from a radical point of view, liberal egalitarianism is preferred due of its arguments, which are rooted in fairness to mirror choice differences. In order to succeed, liberal egalitarians approach the issue of equalities from an incentive provision point of view. In this regard, the areas of distributive justice and natural rights become the primary focus of egalitarianism. This paper will explore the core issues that surround the objectives of liberal egalitarians, the issue of equality of law without equality of opportunity and the controversy surrounding equality coupled with whether it should be a political idea or not.
The differences that liberal egalitarians seek to diminish
Evaluating liberty and equality in a gratifying manner has been one of the challenges amongst modern philosophers and legal theorists. Cohen (1989) insists that some scholars still hold the ideas of their predecessors like John Stuart Mill and Aristotle, who argued that the foundation of justice is equality. Hence, it should be a prime consideration before implementing political policies. Other philosophers are on the affirmation that the ascendancy of freedom should be the basis for political and legal decisions (Cohen 1989). The antagonism that seems to crop up from the two interpretations gives rise to the concept of egalitarianism that seeks to diminish the differences that arise from the understanding of liberty and equality.
The discussions surrounding freedom and equality in relation to political policies are focal points of egalitarianism. Egalitarians see equality and freedom as complementary concepts that aim at facilitating social equality based on political decisions. The motive to promote the realization of a society characterized by people, who are free and equal irrespective of their background, inspired egalitarians to speak against any forms of social and political inequalities (Young 1990). The differences that exist in fundamental human rights in the commercial and non-commercial domains are the main issues tackled by egalitarian theorists. Egalitarian principles pay much attention to the economic and social aspects of states by scrutinizing how justice is exercised together with its effect on influencing disparities.
Egalitarians favor the idea of distributive justice. In this case, social justice becomes of a paramount consideration where the ownership of private property is not regarded as a basic right (McKinnon 2008). Consequently, a conflict grows after the interference of the egalitarian ideas of the basic rights. Since liberals do not regard ownership of property as an essential requirement for social equality, egalitarians approach situations of inequalities with liberalism, thus enhancing the viability of their ideologies (Young 1990).
Accordingly, Young (1990) claims that the principles of egalitarianism were framed in a way that they could be applied to basic rights. For instance, the Lockean rights state that every person is entitled to basic moral rights that apply equally. Individuals are required to respect the natural laws and freedoms of others. A just society is advocated for where the equitable distribution of resources, as a political responsibility, favors the eradication of imbalances. Therefore, egalitarianism strives to diminish conflicts that arise due to the misinterpretation of the relationship between ownership of property and distributive justice.
Different classes exist in society, thus forming a drift between the rich and the poor. The difference principle of egalitarianism advocates the benefit of have-nots in society through the collective efforts of all community members. Egalitarianism envisions the attainment of justice when the proletariats take part in improving the living standards of the poor, not just the idea of capitalism.
However, they approach this aspect from a liberal point of view by insisting that it is ones choice to help the other, since everyone is responsible for his/her choices and actions. According to McKinnon (2008), social movement towards the realization of equality where the rich assist the poor to move up the social class ladder becomes an act of justice. Reducing the economic differences that tend to limit the enjoyment of rights stands out as the ambition of egalitarians.
In addition, the focus of egalitarianism is the removal of inequalities in society through the practice of the principle of equal access to advantage. Access to advantage means being in possession of resources that can be used to improve ones living standards and contribute positively towards goal attainment. An application of this aspect is best viewed from the capitalistic angle, which is characterized by free markets. In the event that the disadvantaged are not poor due to the choices of the wealthy, egalitarianism supports the eradication of the barriers to the poors access to wealth.
Equality of law without equality of opportunity
In the modern societies, the laws of individual countries in most cases provide for an equal application of the law. The resultant implication is that the law is not expected to be discriminative irrespective of ones position in society. According to Cavanagh (2002), opportunities available for seizure are also intended to be equitable among the masses based on factors such as merit. Therefore, the question of whether there is a relationship between the equality of law and equality of opportunity arises.
The obligatory nature of justice, which is a primary determinant of balance, provides that individuals should be granted the equality of opportunity (Cavanagh 2002). The enforcement of justice through the equitable application of the law ensures that morality is achieved when seizing opportunities. For instance, the majority of bills of rights provides for freedom of movement. Both men and women are expected to move freely within a territory that is violence-free in this case.
Since the law applies evenly to men and women pertaining to movement, an equality of opportunity to move applies to both genders. According to Clayton and William (2002), it would be unethical if only one gender were allowed to move in the territory and capitalize on all the opportunities that come with the freedom of movement. Here, discrimination of one gender is minimized by the provisions of the law, thus leading to fairness in the presentation of opportunities.
The provision of equitable education opportunities by various governments manifests the correlation between law and opportunities. White (2007) posits that rules guiding how revenue tax would be used for running education institutions in a particular country indicate that the move towards attaining equality of opportunity among students is observed.
The laying down of requisite provisions by governments stipulating the allocation of funds equally to all students in the various districts irrespective of their economic position can be seen as a move towards enhancing the equality of opportunities (White 2007). Schools from low-income areas can be boosted by leveraging extra funds from the additional resources from different schools. By so doing, pupils from poor backgrounds can access resources for learning just like their counterparts from wealthy families.
In some cases, the coercion of peoples conduct can be applied for the purpose of internalization of norms aimed at promoting the equality of opportunity. For the propulsion of the concept of equality of opportunity, liberal egalitarians propose that justified coercion based on the behavior of individuals could be applied to be in line with the laws that promote equality (Gaus & DAugustino 2013).
For instance, the freedom of expression could be limited if it threatens the facilitation of justice to minority groups in society. The continued reference of the handicapped in society as disabled could be limited since this aspect tends to create an impression that individuals from such groups are lesser human beings. Eliminating hate towards a particular group through the application of the law improves the equality of opportunity. It is usually considered a crime to communicate messages of hate towards a particular group, hence making it an offense punishable by law.
Feminists have surfaced to challenge explicit films that portray women as inferior beings. Feminism advocates that pornographic materials should be banned since they are discriminative in nature by depicting male dominance even in matters of lovemaking. They view it as a violation of womens civil rights, which deny them the opportunity to have a say in the willingness to engage in sex.
Bestowing the ideas of Anderson (1999), the subordination and other forms of sexual mistreatment arising from such films create an image that women are lesser human beings, and whenever they raise the issue in debates, they are usually not considered. The need for equality of opportunity for sexual issues has contributed to the formulation of laws and policies governing the rating of films that are explicit. The sale of pornographic materials has also been limited s to prevent further damage to the female gender.
The issues of equitable education opportunities and the feminists advocacy against pornography indicate a correlation between equality of law and equality of opportunity. In the case of enhancing equal education opportunities for students from districts with varying economic backgrounds tends to contribute to the legal framework of that particular country. Therefore, the political authorities are central in determining the legislation of laws that play a central part in ensuring equality of opportunity, which is available for children from different backgrounds. The feminists push for laws against the production and circulation of pornographic materials also indicates that the opportunities available to women can be dependent on some laws that protect them from being viewed as inferior. Therefore, the equality of opportunity, regardless of the underlying differences among individuals and groups, is heightened by the application of the equality of law.
Equality is a controversial idea
Many controversies encompassing the concept of egalitarianism have emerged. The justification for equality has been surrounded by critiques challenging the perception that all human beings are born equal, and thus they should remain equal throughout their lives. According to Barker, Atkinson, and Dworkin (1998), some argue that factors such as gender, social-economic, and political background play a significant role in determining the state of equality surrounding people in different societies.
Some principles of egalitarianism seem to elicit debates on their pragmatism. For instance, the principle of difference purports that the well-off should work towards the elevation of the worst of without considering the individual choices made by either side to be in their status (Bedau 1971). The notion that basic rights should be applied evenly without considering the ownership of property seems to be contradicting the principle of difference, thus evoking controversy.
More discussion based on the principles of egalitarianism emerged when the principle of ease of access was put under scrutiny. An infringement of the basic right occurs when all the resources for wealth creation are provided for the poor regardless of their choices. It becomes a personal responsibility to decide whether to possess property or not, hence others should not be involved (Gaus & DAugustino 2013). Accordingly, limiting other peoples rights for the sake of others is seen as not promoting equality, thus resulting in controversy enveloping egalitarianism.
The view and belief that there is no existence of differences between the two dominant genders has elicited controversy. The social construction on how men and women should carry on with their activities has caused differences among egalitarians. Different roles have been allocated to men and women, thus resulting in the concept of gender based on sex (Anderson 1999). In this regard, women and men are not treated equally since the expectations of society are based on the roles accredited to them. Anderson (1999) claims that socialization in the modern world considers the gender that one belongs to, and thus people are socialized in a way that indicates the existent differences between the two sexes purporting inequality.
Most communities in the world do not expect women to assume political positions since it is thought to be a male dominated field. Due to this aspect, Anderson (1999) posits that egalitarians seem to contradict the social norms, values, behaviors, and roles expected of a particular gender especially women. As a result, this aspect has posed a threat to the traditional perception that men are the ones to be leaders and women to take control of household duties.
Egalitarians are in support of the move by women to assume political roles, which has brought numerous controversies since they view it as a move to overthrow the mens central roles in politics (Amartya 2011). Liberal egalitarians do not advocate the abandonment of traditional womens roles especially in matters politics, but they are in the view that they too have the potential to perform leadership roles. The perception that men are expected to take political positions due to their wisdom, protective nature, and responsibility unlike women who are characterized by compassion, nurturing capabilities, and gentleness has made it debatable for their capacity to perform political roles just like men.
Equality as a political idea
Politics plays a central part in determining social and economic conditions of a given state. In this consideration, politics has the capability to determine the distribution of justice and the protection of human rights. Political egalitarianism is of the view that everyone deserves equal political rights and privileges (Swift 2001). Thus, the concept of equality can be observed from the political point of view since it acknowledges the importance of political rights in promoting social equity among the masses. Swift (2001) holds that the law provides provisions for the protection of human rights in a bid to bring about equality. The formulation and implementation of policies geared towards promoting equity lie in the political realm as political leaders perform their legislative roles.
The need to idealize equality through politics could result in efficiency in achieving equality since politics has a great impact on convincing the masses due loyalty and affiliation. For instance, politicians should not use freedom of expression to communicate false communication in the name of promises. By reflecting on politics, the idea of equality becomes more realistic since the political institution would be on the frontline on matters concerning justice (Farelly 2004). The question of politically democratic regimes arising from political philosophers gets a response from the principles of justice, which seek fairness in the democratic processes.
Political conceptions that explain natural inequalities cannot be ignored if egalitarianism were to be easily comprehended. In political justice, the interpretation of equality implies an equitable distribution of resources that seek to satisfy the basic needs of the people. According to Farelly (2004), political justice aims at impressing on the grounds of the principles of fundamental needs that focus on the minimally acceptable standards of living in society. Indeed, it is evident that the political culture publicly affirms such principles that are geared towards the elevation of the quality of life. A wider scope of the idea of egalitarianism is achieved after the installation of political intuitions that sensitize the essence of justice and natural rights in the realization of equality.
The cooperation between the different sectors of society is necessary for justice to apply equally. The law should be backed by aid from various agencies working interdependently if natural rights are to be enjoyed equally. Framing the idea of equality in a political perspective reinforces the view that collective efforts towards the empowerment of the deprived are manageable through distributive justice. Kymlicka (1990) argues that rather than just criticizing inequalities and lack of freedoms in society, political philosophy expresses ways through which inequalities can be handled collectively. Therefore, an orderly society circles social cooperation spanning generations that uphold the concept of political justice.
Democracy entails a system of representation of subjects through voting for leaders and political decisions. Since equality of opportunity is an issue of concern for egalitarians, democratic procedures present excellent ideas for equality of opportunity (Kymlicka 1990). For instance, long-term foreign residents are expected to be granted citizenship after a particular period, and thus presenting them with an equal opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. Similarly, equality of opportunity can be idealized in the event that officials are granted equal opportunities to be elected or appointed based on majority votes and merit.
Conclusion
Egalitarianism seeks to promote equality regardless of circumstances surrounding an individual. Aspects of justice such as freedom and basic human rights should be emphasized for the success of egalitarianism to be achieved. The exercise of justice and fundamental human rights without discrimination plays a pivotal part in eliminating inequalities. However, some controversies arose after the conflict of the ideas of justice with the basic natural rights of individuals. For instance, gender equality has elicited debates over the years with women fighting to be recognized as equal to men. Framing egalitarianism as a political idea in a great way has assisted in pointing out the social inequalities the people are subject to, thus resulting in legislations that diminish the disparities.
Reference List
Amartya, S 2011, The Standard of Living, Tanner Lectures in Human Values, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 195-211.
Anderson, E 1999, What is the point of equality, Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 237-337.
Barker, P, Atkinson A & Dworkin, R 1998, Living As Equals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bedau, H 1971, Justice and Equality, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Cavanagh, M 2002, Against Equality of Opportunity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Clayton, M & William, A 2002, The Ideal of Equality, Palgrave, New York.
Cohen, G 1989, On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Dworkin, R 1981, What is equality?, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10, no. 4 pp. 283 345.
Farelly, C 2004, Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, Sage, California.
Gaus, G & DAugustino, F 2013, The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, Routledge, London.
Kymlicka, W 1990, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McKinnon, C 2008, Issues in Political Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Swift, A 2001, Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Students and Politicians, Polity Press, Cambridge.
White, S 2007, Equality, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Young, I 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
The concept of capitalism has been in existence since time immemorial. While on one hand there are those who are ardent supporters of the concept, there are others who feel that this concept has not been of any benefit to the world. Some people argue that capitalism is only a tool for the rich and well established countries which they use to propagate their selfish motives at the expense of poor or third world countries.
Johan Noberg argues that, the worlds inequality is due to capitalism. Not to capitalism having made certain groups poor, but to its making its practitioners wealthy. This paper takes a critical look at this quote and attempts to demystify it in order to establish the correct position as far as capitalism is concerned.
Background Information
It has been said that close to the total number of resources that are available world over are consumed by only a small percentage of its population. To be precise, more than 80 percent of the worlds resources are under the control and strict management of about 20 percent of the entire population of the world. The other 80 percent of the population have to share the 20% and since it is hardly enough, they have to fight for it and it is survival for the fittest.
That is without a doubt a great form of inequality. The big question however is, what causes this great discrepancy and discordance? Are the developing countries or the peripheral countries poor because the developed countries are rich? Would that be a valid argument? Does it mean that if the 1st world countries were less rich then the poor countries would be doing better? It is obviously a misconception when we assume that those countries that are rich are the cause of poverty that the third world countries experience.
Production of Resources
Noberg notes that most of the countries that are doing well economically, for example the United States of America were colonies and that they had a lot of catching up to do after they gained independence. Surprisingly, some of the countries that are least developed, for instance, Liberia and Afghanistan were not colonized and have had control of their resources from the word go (Noberg 154-155).
The main reason however why only about 20 percent of the worlds population has control of close to 80 percent of the worlds resources is because the same countries are in charge of production of these massive resources. Therefore, the problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that many people in the world are generally poor, and not because there are other people who are rich.
Argument against capitalism
Those who advance arguments against capitalism are of the opinion that looking at the per capita GDP of some of the rich countries and in comparison to the per capita of poor countries, the former is said to be 30 times higher (Peet 94). It is because of this observation that critics argue that this inequality is caused by capitalism.
While they may be right in making such a conclusion, they are definitely mistaken in regard to the reasons they give. Most of the countries that have prospered economically have taken the path of capitalism while those that have resulted in communism while impeding production, trade and ownership have always experienced economic hardships.
There are natural factor that may be considered to have played a role in determining the prosperity of some countries. Factors such as climate, natural calamities among others have undermined the economic development of some countries. Countries that have more than half of the land being a desert or countries that continually experience natural calamities such as earthquakes and floods have been affected in terms of economic development.
This not withstanding, the kind of economic strategies that countries have taken happen to be the great determinants of how well their economy has been thriving; the main issue therefore is whether a country is liberal or controlling in terms of management of resources. Liberal countries have managed to gain a stable ground and are now very prosperous while those that are controlling tend to lag behind in terms of development and economic growth.
Studies conducted have shown that the GDP of countries that are liberal is way higher, close to two times higher, than the GDP of those countries that have remained less liberal and more controlling. Looking at this situation, then it is clear that the discrepancy that exists could be reduced if the developing countries would agree into becoming more liberal thereby accessing open markets and free economy.
Some countries in the periphery that have since discovered the need to embrace liberty have experienced exponential growth and this has seen them grow not only faster than other third world countries but a lot faster than some of the 1st word countries.
Putting the record straight
Taking into consideration the above discussion, then there is need to revisit the quote by Johan Noberg, the worlds inequality is due to capitalism. Not to capitalism having made certain groups poor, but to its making its practitioners wealthy. In simplified language, Noberg is simply arguing that the inequality in terms of distribution of resources in the world has been caused not directly by capitalism but because capitalism in itself is unevenly distributed.
When we consider the aspects of investment and trade, we realize that they tend to flow evenly only in the economies that are more liberal and open to the rest of the world. This shows that economic development is not usually achieved in isolation (Kegley and Shannon 23). For a country to grow and develop in terms of the economy, it must get support and investment both within (domestic) and also from outside (foreign).
Therefore, a country that does not create conducive environment for foreign investors to come invest will always have an economic go slow in terms of growth. An economy that is considered closed to the rest of the world is one that is attempting to flourish in isolation. The result of such a move is that since there is no external intervention, there is no much investment from the outside world and the result is that the economy of such a country becomes stunted in its growth (Harvey 345).
Between the years 1988 and 1998, an estimated quarter of all the total direct investments from the international community were channeled to the developing economies. Since the 80s the amount of direct investments from affluent countries to the developing ones has been increasing. However, it is not all developing countries that have been developing from these direct investments. Instead, it is only those that have made it possible for foreign investments to come into their country that have become more liberal.
Those countries that have since decided to become more liberal have not only experienced tremendous growth in their economy but have almost outdone or at least managed to catch up with those that are considered affluent (Soros 88). It has therefore become more apparent that for the countries that want to catch up in terms of economic growth thereby becoming more liberal and open to the rest of the world is the best way to go about it.
Chairman of the Panel of Imminent Persons, Koffi Anaan, when still holding the office of the Secretary General to the United Nations was quoted to have said that the world is unequal and in view of this, the main losers are not so much those who have had a fair share of exposure to globalization, but more so, those who have been left out of the globalization concept.
When critics argue that capitalism is by large to blame for the uneven distribution of resources and therefore inequality in economic development, then such can be said to be contradicting (Hutton and Giddens 123).
The argument by critics is that many well established corporations and companies only want to invest in countries that are well established and stable as far as the economy is concerned. Critics further argue that when corporation go to poor countries and decide to set base, it is only because they will get low cost of production due to cheap labour and therefore do so at the expense of the labour force in that country leading to economic stagnation and redundancy.
Going back to the sentiments made by the former UN Secretary General, it becomes apparent that those countries which would rather not participate in globalization stand back, they tend to marginalize themselves and they are not marginalized as critics would want the rest of the world to believe.
Practical examples will go along way in this discussion to demonstrate that there has always been a misconception regarding capitalism. Economic studies that have been conducted over time have taken side to side comparisons of countries that have embraced openness and free economy as opposed to those who have kept off (Ross and Kent 231). Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and West Germany have been seen to be better off economically due to the liberal nature than their counterparts such as China and North Korea (Biel 55).
When a country embraces economic freedom, there is always a notable growth with the per capita GDP increasing. As a result, the standards of living are improved and the life of the society in general improves. Even critics cannot deny the fact that capitalism is pathway to prosperity.
This therefore means those who are yet to embrace the concept of liberalism need to lobby for liberalization of trade so that the poor countries can benefit as well. It may not be easy to make critics see the merits or advantages of liberalism. They are adamant in believing that there is any good that can come out of a concept which they verily believe is the cause of the gap in economic development that exists between the core and the periphery countries.
Equal Distribution
Although the concept of capitalism cannot be blamed for the inequality that exists in the world today, developed countries have been accused of protectionism, an aspect that has continued to affect the poor countries. For instance, the United States of America as well as the European Union is known for offering subsidies to the textile and agricultural sectors.
As a result, these sectors in the third world countries are deprived a competitive advantage since the product from the EU and American markets are way cheaper that people opt for them instead of the products from the developing countries. It therefore becomes very hard for the economies of such countries to thrive and especially when the sectors affected are the backbone of the economy of such countries.
The Western World
The western world where the core countries or the first w3orld countries are concentrated have for a long time appeared seemingly concerned in the plight of the third world countries and even appeared as though they are interested in helping these countries come out of the woods (Centeno and Joseph 45)..
However, economic analysts a lot of lip service considering that these some countries are partly to blame for the slow and almost non existent economic growth in third world countries. As already mentioned, the subsidies given by the core countries for some of the products in the agricultural and textile industry has been one of the greatest pitfalls for the third world countries.
This is because, they are not able to compete in a market that has products which are already subsides and the end result is that these sectors end up collapsing. If the western countries are indeed committed in helping third world countries revive their economies and actually boost their economic growth, they would not offer such subsidies being fully aware of their impacts.
Other than the subsidies, it has been noted that all the imports that western countries make from third countries are subjected to more than 30 percent above what is considered average duty (Frieden 23). Paying attention to these observations, it becomes clear, that there is a deliberate and absolute attempt by the western world to ensure that third world countries have no way of catching in terms of economic development and stability. We are not saying that is wrong for the western world to sell to us that which we are not able to produce.
Our bone of contention is when we make something and they on the other hand make something similar and sell it at a considerably lower price than we are selling thereby out rightly pushing us out of business. The commitment by 1st world countries must be more than just lip service and empty promises. Instead, measures which are tangible in nature must be seen to be out in place so as to aid the third world countries become equality economically stable.
However, having set the record straight, we must revisit the issue of capitalism being the cause of poverty and as already mentioned, this is a big misconception. Third world countries nee to be encouraged to open their markets so tat foreign investment can come into their country and this will be their first step in ensuring that they gain economic growth.
Economic analysts argue that while it is true that there is great inequality especially between the developed and the developing world, it is a big mistake to blame this discrepancy to capitalism. The discrepancies and inequalities that exist between first world countries and third world countries can be attributed to other factors such as the ones discussed above including the trade barriers that first world countries impose making it difficult for third world countries to trade freely.
Conclusion
The reason why the issue of inequality has remained controversial even when it is so apparent that it exists is because of some unanswered questions. To begin with, some analysts pose the question that, what is used to measure inequality? Just because a country has certain resources and another does not have does not make the former to be more equal than the latter. The other question that is frequently asked is, what is wrong in one country attaining economic stability before the other, after all, we all cannot get there at the same time?
Those are very critical questions in addressing the issue of inequality and whether capitalism has any role to play in the inequality. It has been argued that those countries that classified as poor do not necessarily experience poverty. This is because poverty as a concept is relative in the sense that instead of considering what one a country does not have analysis look at what a country does not have in relation to others.
Even critics who are totally against the concept of capitalism do concur with the fact that the world in general is not where it was a couple of decades back. They also agree that the changes that have occurred over time have not happened miraculously but it is all thanks to capitalism.
It is unfortunate however that capitalism has only worked for those countries that have embraced it. On the other hand, those countries that have decided to shun the concept of capitalism and globalization in general can only have themselves to blame. This is because by failing to embrace capitalism, they have in essence alienated themselves and the result of this has been lack of economic development, economic stagnation and redundancy in economic growth.
With capitalism come freedom and liberty. The concept of open markets and free trade has come as a result of capitalism. Whether to embrace the concept is a choice that individual countries are supposed to make.
If they feel that they do not want to be part of the global network, then it only means that they have alienated themselves. No country can grown isolation, neither is there any economy that can stabilize on its own. Foreign investment is one of the core pillars of ay economy, be it through exports, tourism or any other kind of investment.
Therefore, when countries close up avenues for foreign investment to come in, then such a country cannot expect to prosper much in terms of economic development. In view of the above discussion, one may say that the inequality that exists in the world today and especially between the core and the periphery countries is not as a result of capitalism per se but other factors including failure by poor countries to embrace the concept that is capitalism.
It is important that poor countries are made to see the benefits of capitalism because it is only then they will accept top embrace the concept and in so doing will catch up with the affluent countries if not become more stable economically than these countries.
Works Cited
Biel, Robert. Global Capitalism: Its Dynamics and the Impact on the Prospects of Poor Countries. California: Zed Books, 2000.
Centeno, Miguel and Joseph, Cohen. Global Capitalism: a Sociological Perspective. California: Polity, 2010.
Frieden, Jeffry. Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. Mexico: W.W. Norton. 2007.
Harvey, David. Spaces of Global Capitalism. New Jersey: Verso, 2006.
Hutton, Will and Anthony Giddens. Global Capitalism. California: New Press, 2001.
Kegley, Charles and Shannon Blanton. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.
Noberg, Johan. In Defense of Global Capitalism. New York: Cato Institute, 2003.
Peet, Richard. Global Capitalism: Theories of Societal Development. New York: Taylor and Francis, 1991.
Ross, Robert and Kent Trachte. Global Capitalism: the New Leviathan. London: Suny Press, 1990.
Soros, George. The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered. New York: Public Affairs, 1998.
Aristotle asserts that there are several forms of democracies. One such form of democracy is that of equality. In this essay, the writer seeks to analyze the concept of equality as a form of democracy as fronted by Aristotle. Further, the writer will offer an analysis of what equality entails in present day governments and whether democracy can exist without equality.
Aristotles meaning of equality is a form of government that is democratically rooted and not aligned to the issue of state and class. To him, ones ability to hold an influential government position or title should not be based on who they are in the society or what they have (Aristotle 9). This is to imply that anyone willing and desiring to hold office should be able to vie for a political seat, with their probable election being dependent on the votes of the masses. Thus, the ability of one to ascend to a government post or not should be totally dependent on the votes of the majority.
Meaning of equality in the government today
The term equality in government today denotes the consideration of the opposite gender, equal distribution of resources, granting everyone the ability to cast a vote by creating a conducive political climate, and ensuring that all races can interact freely without fear of victimization, among other denotations. It is a key concern for the modern day governments to ensure that they create equal political opportunities for men and women counterparts of all races (Folsom par. 3).
Contemporary society believes in the concept of women emancipation and empowerment, which have permeated the political landscape. Given the need to ensure equality among genders, the government is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that it is the first to implement notable changes in these areas. This is possible is through allocating crucial positions to women, among other ways, which imply that women can take part in key decision-making and policy implementations in the government.
Capaldis inference to the term equality in modern-day governments is the creation of an economic climate that standardizes income between the poor and the rich (29). The modern governments recognize the need to ensure that they can streamline the taxation process among their citizens to ensure that the gap between the rich and the poor is minimized. One way of closing the gap is through progressive taxation, which seeks to impose a higher tax burden on the rich and lower taxes on the poor. Most governments promise to reduce such gaps by imposing taxes that are commensurate with their citizens level of income.
Creating a fair ground for all voters so that they can exercise their civic duty is another way of closing the gap. Equality to modern day governments implies civic education and voter registration even among the minority in the society (Verba 4). Through such actions, governments ensure that minorities can call for change or get certain resources that are not available to them. In the modern day governments, democracy and equality voters can advance their cause regarding the terms of association chosen.
For example, every person carries equal weight in advancing their concerns by their voters card. Thus, everyone exercises equal capacity as the other to decide how an election will turn out. Therefore, when some members are not able to vote, one can decree that there has been foul play.
Nonetheless, the democracy that is existent in most governments today allows that even though equality is granted to each member to cast their vote, the alternative opinion that gets the most number of votes gets implemented courtesy of the majority rule. Thus, the concerns of people are assumed to be treated equally (Verba 10). Further, this implies that everyone has an equal ability to run for office to the government and to contribute to matters of public debate.
Most governments agree that equality implies fair treatment of all persons under their jurisdiction without the favor of race, status, or class. Citizens, as well as political figures, are of the opinion that fair treatment to all persons regarding access to education, access to better employment opportunities, and better pay, among others, despite ones racial affiliation, is a true picture of equality (Daniels 76). In fact, this issue is highly contentious, with the majority of Hispanics and African American people asserting the need to be treated fairly.
Is it possible to have a democracy without equality?
Yes. It is possible to have democracy without equality. The tenets of democracy are to accord every citizen an opportunity and right to advance their political interests, as well as play a role in spearheading change. However, there are various forms of inequalities, as different people have different needs and interests. Thus, democracy is not able to eradicate all of the issues as it is impossible to satisfy everyones political interests at a go. For instance, democracy may ensure equality by allowing women equal opportunities to vote just like their male counterparts. However, this does not mean that will be equally represented in government positions and elected to governments.
Why would equality be such an important issue in any form of government?
Equality is an important issue in any form of government. Fick argues that the present day government is founded on the principles of equality, which is aligned with the attainment of human rights, promotion of freedoms, non-sexism, and non-racism (29). For any government to exist freely and operate effectively, it is necessary that these values permeate every level of the government, whether provincial, local, or national. In essence, the principle of equality should operate in a substantive manner other than through formalities.
My definition of equality
I believe that equality refers to the ability of people to make a decision without duress or without feeling obligated by their circumstances to do so. This is cognizant of peoples ability to spearhead change by voting. Thus, equality is only present when everyone, despite their social position, their race, and their economic status, can cast a vote to effect change not because they have been bribed to do so, but because they feel that the vote will benefit them in one way or the other. I also believe that equality is the ability to gain access to the fair distribution of resources, position, education, and income, as well as gain employment commensurate with the level of education, among other meanings.
Is Equality possible in the modern state?
Equality is not possible in a modern state. Various states are limited by a myriad of factors that hinder democratic equality. One such issue is the problem of culture. While some states can gain gender equality, some are not able. Thus, expecting that women will be empowered or given the opportunity to cast a vote or contribute to political matters is nearly impossible. In Arab states, for example, the culture dictates that womens voices should not be heard.
In fact, all the decision-making power is granted to men, with women considered as non-entities. In such states, therefore, it is near impossible to expect women leaders in government positions or holding top government positions. Such is the situation in states like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Another factor that hinders equality in the modern state is poverty. Every person is expected to have an equal right and ability to cast a fair vote. However, this is not the case in most African states where corruption and voter bribery is a norm. Wealthy politicians and businesspeople can secure political seats unfairly because voters are easily bought to cast their votes in the politicians favor in return for minor benefits. Thus, poorly qualified contenders lose to rich opponents as they lack the financial ability to buy their way to success compared to their opponents.
Further, it is impossible that all the people in the state think in a similar manner. Different people have different tastes and preferences, as well as priorities. Thus, to expect everyone in the society to think the same, have the same ideology, as well as express the same political interests is impossible.
To Aristotle, equality entails same electoral opportunities for both rich and poor, which means that anyone who desires to attain a political office can contest for a government position and seek the majority votes. While I agree that this is the right form of democracy, it is impossible to acquire equality in the present states because different people have different thoughts and needs. As a result, it is impossible to cater for all the needs and assume an equal state of affairs.
That aside, cultural factors hinder equality. This is illustrated by the power distance existent in most Arab countries, which in turn mean that women are hindered from undertaking any governmental positions, as well as their ability to choose their preferred candidates. In African countries, the voters ability to conduct fair elections is limited when they are bribed by the rich to vote in their favor. Overall, it is hard to attain equality when limiting factors still exist.
Throughout the history of time, people have been complaining about how justice is unequally delivered with the poor being the oppressed. The rich get away with everything and the law does not apply to them. People have come to adapt to the situation of inequality in the application of justice and thus public policy has been constantly under fire (Alesina et al. Fighting Poverty 6). In this paper we look at how justice is delivered and how simple cases may impact on the overall justice system.
Consider this case; a wealthy man is charged $290000 for a speeding fine. Should the rich be fined according to their wealth or should the overall system be equal to each and everyone. Hacker notes that the justice system has been questioned about being lenient to the rich but in subjecting the rich to more severe punishment does not really help the situation( The Great Risk Shift 41).
Justice is blind and as such it should not recognize the wealth of a particular person. A murder should be a murderer irrespective of his status in society or his wealth and as such each and every person should serve the same sentence according to the law. The sections that follow shows how counterproductive a ruling as the one mentioned above could prove to be.
Inequality exists in every society but what affects people is the feeling that disparities in social status contribute to people being trampled on and oppressed (Wilkinson, The Impact of Inequality 18). According to Wilkinson social hierarchy and inequality has contributed to a lot of problems a given society experiences ( The Impact of Inequality 34).
When court rulings tend to punish the rich more financially, the society is then reminded about the existing difference in power. If a rich man can pay $29,000 for a speeding ticket which is arguably more that what most people make in a month feeling of resentment may arise.
At first people may think it a good ruling in that the rich should not be allowed to get away with crime but on the overall it may instill doubt about the justice system to the citizens. Suppose another case which may require jail time arises and the judge provides the option of paying or spending time in jail, this may cause a big commotion since people know that the rich can just pay their way out.
By imposing such a huge fine on the rich offender, the judge has brought the issue of inequality to the law courts. The law should not recognize such aspects of society and in so doing the integrity of the court is undermined (Mishel et al Working America 32). When such a case is brought before a judge, the financial status of the offender does not matter and the ruling should be in accordance with the crime.
One although could argues that in imposing such a fine, the judge seeks to show the public that the rich cannot get away easily just because they have money. The judge tries to instill fear to the rich that committing crime no matter how small may have dire consequences. This ruling attacks the rich where it hurts the most, their wealth.
It could be wrong not to consider how a ruling like this may impact the average citizen. Since most people who commit crimes like this may have difficulty paying the required money, they are less likely to engage in such activities such as over speeding. In contrast, the rich are able to pay these fines hence are more likely to continue doing this illegal activities since the repercussions can be easily handled (Vogel, The Market for Virtue 75).
According to Stone, policy making is a constant struggle on criteria classification and the boundaries of this classes and the characterization of ideals that determine the behavior of people ( policy paradox 13). Considering this train of thought it would seem that the just hash fine is in the right since most rich people commit crime because they can pay off the fines.
Even though these huge fines may help deter the rich from committing this crimes the integrity of the court is undermined. Stone introduces the idea of inducements to create change.
She argues for both the rational method that assumes when dealing with public policy instituting more sanctions to threaten wrongdoers will have a positive behavior change and the polis model. But under the polis model, she states that such sanctions may cause conflicts between the people in society, may make the wrongdoers harden in their resolve or may be sabotaged by the courts to further themselves.
If judges start charging high fines for simple crimes just because one is rich, the courts could become a business where fines are used to further either the courts or the judges themselves. According to Stone such inducements highly rely on the target expectations and point of view and as such could be very hard to design and control them ( Policy Paradox , 38).
In order to have meaningful reforms of the economy and capitalism, meaningless policies such as those designed to make a point on the public should be abandoned (Reisch, Future to success 52). The structure of institutions needs to be changed in that everyone can relate hence creating a rift in the judgment delivered between the rich and the poor is unproductive.
Whilst the poor may feel a sense of satisfaction in seeing such a sentence delivered, no real impact is made to discourage a repeat of such behavior. If the judge was to seek a real sentence, then the repeat offenders license could have been suspended or the offender should have spent some time in jail.
The third point raised against such a ruling is the possibility of discrimination. In imposing such a huge fine, the judge portrays that the court views different groups of people. The rich are judged separately from the poor. How can the public trust such a court in other matters e.g. since women often feel oppressed should the court start granting the favors and delivering more severe punishment to men who have committed similar crimes.
Inequality is a real problem in society but it has always been there (Regnier, 13). There are very many people who feel that they are not equally treated such as the physical disabled, minority ethnic groups, religious groups etc. If the court punishes one severely because he or she is rich should it not apply the same reasoning in dealing with case involving all these groups?
Inequality mainly arises due to peoples perception. If the court treats a richer man different as it would a normal man, it then cements the feeling of inequality amongst the people. According to Pear (20), one of the reasons why life expectancy gap has been increasing is that people act different.
The poor engage in risky behavior due to the fact that the society expects them to. Doctors take extra care when dealing with rich patient since they have the notion that it is expected of them (Pear, Gap in Life Expectancy 20). A poor man is less likely to properly educate his kid since from experience he has learnt that the world is harsh.
In her book, Ehrenreich notes that the rich can by expensive lawyers, judges and even congressmen while the poor in society are struggling to feed themselves ( This Land is Their Land 136). While most poor people are aware of this fact they really do not care much as it is usually kept secret. A ruling such as the one stated above may unknowingly create this feeling of indifference in the less fortunate members of society (Wilkinson, The Impact of Inequality 19).
The public view is that since one is rich, he may as well pay the fine this is what Reich terms as misdirected moral anger. This feeling of resentment only hinders development as it prevents people from seeing and seizing opportunities. The courts action may bring attention that the rich can get away with a lot thus enhancing outrage among the lower classes of society.
According to Reich ( Supercapitalism 63), capitalism is slowly stifling democracy. Capitalism prospers according to what most want as individual in the process democracy which is governed by collective desires is being destroyed.
Elections are usually held under democratic principles and so is the constitution that each and every man abides by. The ruling in consideration may please a section of the society but looking at the larger picture is it endorsed by democratic principles. The law is aimed at protecting all, the rich and the poor alike.
Subjecting the rich to more severe fines may create a feeling of fear amongst this section of society. Who controls what punishment the rich should receive? The constitution has not differentiated sentencing into two parts; one for the rich and another for the poor. The issue of fairness in society can be put through a very difficult test if rulings like this were a common occurrence. The sentence for repeat offenders has been stated and through the years it has worked relatively fine.
In conclusion, the sentencing of a $29000 speeding fine could only be justified if everyone else was paying the fine. Imposing such a fine because the offender is a rich person is wrong and may prove disastrous. Inequality exists but the main problem is not that one is richer that the other but the difference in treatment (Onishi, Revival in Japan 37). People hate feeling inferior as compared to others and as such this is the main inequality facing people.
The courts integrity may be undermined in that it could be accused that it is working for profits. The ruling may also be discriminative in nature thus spreading fear amongst the masses rather than settling their doubts. The ruling may also instill in peoples mind the feeling of inequality in that the rich are able to pay through any crime.
The final point against such a ruling is that it may work against democracy that people have fought to maintain for a long time. Such a ruling goes against the democratic principle for fairness to all. Justice is blind and as such one cannot discriminate between the rich and the poor when it comes to court matter once found guilty the sentence should be the same regardless of financial status, sex, orientation, religious beliefs or race.
Works Cited
Alesina, Alberto and Glaeser, Edward, L. Fighting Poverty in US and Europe.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004. Print.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. This Land is Their Land. New York: Henry Holt. 2008. Print
Hacker, Jacob. The Great Risk Shift. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Mishel, Lawrence, R. et al. The State of Working America 2008/2009. New York:
Cornell University Press, 2009. Print.
Onishi Normitsu. Revival in Japan Brings Widening of Economic Gap.New York Times 16 April 2006: 36-39. Print.
Pear, Robert Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation , New York Times 23 March 2008. Print
Regnier Pat. Are You Better Off. Money Magazine 14 September 2007: 12-14. Print
Reich, Robert. The Work of Nations. New York: Vintage Press, 1992. Print
Reich, Robert. The Future of success. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. Print.
Reich, Robert. Supercapitalism. New York: Vintage, 2007. Print.
Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print
Wilkinson, Richard, The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier, London: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Vogel, David. The Market for Virtue. Washington: Brookings Institution, 2006. Print.