An Analysis of Nationalism and Imperialism in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx is a political theorist, who is well known for his liberal ideas in Communist Manifesto. He has significantly influenced political dynamics throughout the world. In the 19th century, the political world was characterized by nationalism.
It involves a sense of love and loyalty towards one’s country. At the same time, the world experienced imperialism. The latter was a diplomatic endeavor that saw countries expanding their boundaries and influence into other countries (Kinzer 57).
Karl Marx had anticipated the rise of nationalism and imperialism by opining that a collective experience by a nation will give rise to a distinct ethnicity that will influence other nations. He reflected on the fact that a nation will achieve nationalism by embracing bourgeoise values.
In this case, bourgeoisie will be the image mirrored to the world. It will result into what Felipe (91) termed as civilization. Every nation, including the barbaric ones, will embrace an efficient instrument of production and communication.
Karl Marx described the future of nations through political centralization. It is a phenomenon expressed through an operational government characterized by a code of law, a single custom tariff, and a uniform class pursuing the same interests. Liberal nationalism was the key pillar in realizing the centralized population.
According to Felipe (104), liberal nationalism was a belief in non-xenophobia. It enhanced liberal freedom in the nations. The emergence of liberalism was inevitable due to what Tamir (59) termed as classical liberalism.
Classical Liberalism
The term ‘classical liberalism’ was coined by Tamir to explain the ‘inevitability’ of imperialism. Classical liberalism was an ideology in the political arena that advocated for civil liberty and political freedom. Classical liberalism movement was realized in the 19th century.
It distinguished itself from earlier liberalism that did not cater for expanding industrial revolution and urbanization. To achieve this dream, a different government with a specific society and a policy to address the emerging revolutions was enacted, hence classical liberalism.
The movement was driven by four core principles derived from perceptions of human nature. Egoistic is one of the aspects of human nature that formed the core of this movement. According to the principle, humans are self-centered and only care about themselves. To this end, government was created to shield humans from one another.
Felipe (187) opines that people experience pain and pleasure, which motivates them. As such, calculation was another core principle of the movement. It ensured that pain is countered, while pleasure is increased. The case is evident during hunger. Calculations are done by the individual to alleviate hunger as a pain.
Atomism was another core principle of classical liberalism. In this case, people view themselves as a society and not as a family. The latter was the trend during the earlier liberalism movement. The last principle centered on ‘essentiality’ of the inert. Classical liberalism, unlike the previous liberalism, maintained that humans are free to pursue their own interests. Their actions should not be restricted by the society (Felipe 91).
Classical liberalism contributed to the formation of a separate movement referred to as western imperialism. The latter gave rise to different scenarios like racism, which was evident in western liberalism.
Effects of Classical Liberalism on Western Imperialism
Western liberalism was a political philosophy evident especially in the Anglo-American culture. The philosophy ensured that government activities were not interfering with the lives of the people. In other words, this political-philosophical movement was anti-authoritarian. It emphasized on the importance of the family and its autonomy from state control, which was considered unaccommodating.
In many western nations, the classical movement was driven by the quest to transform the economy and the political philosophy. However, the movement has shifted ground to include ideologies that saw people identify themselves with groups that define.
A case in point is identification through color and culture. The movement has transformed to encompass free market ideologies and free trade unions. The latter are defined under a specific culture and what Anderson (129) refers to as bourgeoisie.
In Marxist literature, bourgeois was a scenario characterized by the accumulation of wealth through means of efficient production. Capitalism was preserved to counter the effects of poor production in the society. The development initiated what Kinzer (81) refers to as economic supremacy. In economic supremacy, the society ensured that it outdid the surrounding nations, leading to what Kinzer (89) referred to as imperialism.
Western Imperialism and Racism
When imperialism emerged, the world’s most powerful nations expanded their boundaries and dominated others. Many native populations were forgotten and, at times, even stereotyped. The intention was to meet the needs and aspirations of the colonial powers. In the process, clash of cultures was evident.
According to Ozkirimli (173), colonialism emerged, where countries like those in Europe took over the affairs of others in Asia and Africa. The British and other colonialists gave the impression that they were conquerors. It eroded mutual respect and gave rise to what Kinzer (91) refers to as racism.
According to Kinzer (130), the activities of the colonialists could not be linked to ‘dominion’. In his book America’s Century of Regime of Change, the author argues that the move was militaristic and aimed to dominate others. However, the western liberalists saw it differently. Their intention was racist in nature, since they were determined to bring civilization to the backward communities. However, they pushed the cultures to the limit.
According to Gray (157), during the expansion, the western imperialists were motivated by racist ideas, which were mainly spearheaded by the Europeans. They argued that whites were superior to non-whites. They argued from a Darwinism perspective, contending that the European nations were legitimately engaged in struggle for survival. Christianity was considered the only true religion, and quite a number of racist policies existed.
Racism was initiated by advanced European technologies that led to military imbalances. Advanced technology gave Europeans an upper hand in the struggle, helping them impose their wills on other cultures. The use of technology enhanced the living standards of Europeans.
The reason for this is what Marxist literature referred to as bourgeoisie, which lead to a ‘mirrored’ civilization. Increased production and improved modes of communication, which were brought about by technology, made Europeans ‘superior’ to other nations (Gray 61).
Conclusion
Karl Marx’s communist manifesto defines the origins of the political movements and ideologies that promote equality to all. However, Marxist ideas are faced by resistance from some quarters due to the emergence of other ideologies incompatible with change. It is evident that change is inevitable in the society. The need for change is one of the reasons why many people resisted racism and colonialism.
Works Cited
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, New York: Verso, 2012. Print.
Felipe, Fernandez. The World: A History- Volume C: From 1700 to the Present, New York: Pantheon, 1998. Print.
Gray, John. Liberalism, Minneapolis: Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2011. Print.
Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, London: Sage, 2008. Print.
Ozkirimli, Umut. Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, New York: Palgrave, 2010. Print.
Tamir, Yael. Liberal Nationalism, New York: Princeton University Press, 2008. Print.
As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear for more and more Americans that there is something definitely wrong about the functioning of the country’s 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 America’s domestic policies, the gap between the country’s 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 country’s 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 country’s 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 wealth’s generation in a post-industrial era.
This partially explains these people’s 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 people’s 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 country’s economy is being technologically-intense, the less it requires natural resources to sustain its continual functioning. Nowadays, people’s 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 country’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 inequality’s 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 America’s 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 Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’, which defines the very essence of the universe’s workings (164).
As a result, the economy’s functioning continues to become ever more inefficient, which negatively affects the process of the GNP’s 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 paper’s 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 people’s ‘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 World’s 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 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 world’s 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 world’s 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 world’s population has control of close to 80 percent of the world’s 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 world’s 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.
Human beings want the same things in life. Every person wants a prospect for success, healthy kids, and a condition in which no one is suffering. The disagreement is how to realize the objectives. Conservatives and liberals in the United States differ on how to raise a happy family, among other crucial topics. While conservatives oppose attempts to legalize marriage equality, the other class of thought supports it.
Advocates of marriage equality contend that everyone has a right to choose whom to marry irrespective of gender. According to Corvino (2013), as illustrated in his book ‘What’s wrong with homosexuality,’ same sex marriage is becoming popular despite the intensive opposition it faces.
He thinks that the impassioned marriage debate will continue as long as conservatives still hold to their opinion. Americans should reflect on conservatives’ views on morality and values, traditions, holiness, and respect for the marriage institution to make better decisions concerning the topic of marriage equality.
Foremost, conservatives consider that legalizing marriage equality would weaken the meaning and honor of the institution of marriage. People from different cultural, social, and political backgrounds define marriage differently. While in some contexts, marriage is a love covenant; in others, it is a legal set up enabling two or more parties to live together (Corvino 2013). Conservatives do not agree on the latter definition.
They hold that marriage is an honorable institution, and that factors such as the soaring rate of divorce has weakened its meaning and respect.
They say allowing same sex marriage would enable more people to engage in non-serious relationships, refer to them as marriages, and continue weakening the marriage institution (Knight 2013). Therefore, according to Knight, the society should not consider same sex couples as a family, as they cannot perform essential family roles such as procreation.
Additionally, conservatives disagree with liberals indicating that marriage equality cannot preserve family values and traditions. They are of the opinion that legalizing homosexuality would weaken society values that are critical to the community’s existence because the basic units of a society are the traditional man, woman, and children living together as a family (Blechner 2009).
The group is of the opinion that the likelihood of friends and lovers living together separating is high than a family comprising biologically related individuals. This shows that the loss of meaning of the family is the core rationale for the deteriorating society’s traditions and values. If conservatives are accurate, allowing gay family relationships will make the situation worse.
Apart from cultures and values, most conservatives are concerned that marriage is a sacred institution and allowing marriage equality is a sin (Sitman 2013). The religious community, in particular, holds that homosexuality is irreligious However, since almost all regions consider same sex marriage out of place, they think the whole society may support the opinion.
The argument is that since almost all Americans are religious, it is mistaken to bow down and legalize homosexuality. At the same time, conservatives have dismissed allegations that joining marriage is a civil and not a religious right.
The group has argued that the constitution of the United States evolved out of Biblical laws, and the government should implement it appropriately to guide everyone to keep the laws of God. As a result, conservatives believe adopting homosexuality laws is morally and religiously wrong.
Another concept that opponents of marriage equality has brought forward is that the gay lifestyle is a risky one that leads to medical complications. One of the reasons they provide is research findings that indicate gay standards of living reduce life expectancy and may cause mental disorders.
They contend that credible sources indicate that life expectancy of gays is 20 years less than for ordinary people. The findings liken homosexuality lifestyle to that of tobacco smoking (Seba 2011). Due to health problems associated with homosexuality, the opponents of marriage equality think that authorities should not promote it.
Additionally the opponents argue that marriage equality is a slippery slope in the area of legality. They disagree with those who want the society to accept marriage equality on the ground that it does not hurt anyone (Temkar 2013). According to most conservatives, the reasoning could start a series of reactions that might wipe out the need for marriage.
The team says that if people accept the reasoning, it would not be strange for individuals to marry animals, their sisters, parents, or dolls. Conservatives believe that these marriage options may sound absurd, but there are people who would want to associate with them. They think it is not right to suggest that if a person’s decision does not have a direct negative impact, the society should cordon it.
The consequences of accepting homosexuality may haunt the society many years after setting a precedent today. This indicates that conservatives consider homosexuality as intolerable.
Another problem with marriage equality, according to conservatives, is that it could mislead kids regarding their social obligations. Young children who live with homosexual parents would learn that people of a similar gender can pro-create.
Children gain knowledge regarding social expectations from their immediate surroundings. Teaching children regarding the essentiality of family traditions can be impossible when the society subject them to such a confusing environment (Reach and Teach 2013).One of the reasons conservatives oppose same sex relations is the need to take care of children.
Further, the opponents of marriage equality argue that allowing same sex marriage is opening a door for social evils such as prostitution and adultery, as some individuals join same sex marriage for financial, emotional, or social benefits (Masten & Schmidtberger 2011). There are people who seek same sex partners to acquire material wealth, but have no interest taking care of their families.
As a result, they engage in risky sexual behaviors, which often lead to acquiring diseases and health conditions such as HIV/AIDS and syphilis. Apart from the health risks, homosexuals cannot bear children. Conservatives argue that these individuals need to have children, and since they cannot afford, they engage in child trafficking. This may cause them to encounter legal problems they would otherwise have avoided.
Finally, conservatives do not oppose the need to raise healthy children, lead happy lives, and respect human rights. They want the society to be mindful of long-term consequences of allowing same sex marriages.
This group disagrees with those who hold to the opinion that everyone has t a right to act, as they would wish provided the action does not directly hurt other members of the society. Obviously, liberals refer to human rights as the reason for supporting marriage equality. Conservatives, on the other hand, mention the need to take care of the younger generation.
Reference List
Blechner, M. 2009, Sex changes transformations in society and psychoanalysis, Routledge, New York.
Corvino, J. 2013, What’s wrong with homosexuality?, NY: Oxford University Press, New York.
Masten, J. & Schmidtberger, J. 2011, Aging with HIV a gay man’s guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Reach and Teach – Operation Marriage – Marriage Equality through the Eyes of Children, 2013, Reach and Teach – the peace and social justice learning company. Web.
Seba, J. 2011, Being gay, staying healthy, Mason Crest Publishers, Broomall, Pa.
Temkar, A. 2013, Supreme Court Ruling Strikes Down DOMA, Weakens Prop. 8; Legalized Gay Marriage in California Likely. – Monterey County Weekly: 0627. Monterey County Weekly. Web.
Chap. I, Article 2 of the UN Charter is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all nations that uphold the principles of the U.N. Under this principle and within the parameters established by the Charter, U.N. member states are granted equal standing and privileges in the organization regardless of real disparities. Therefore within the comity of nations when disputes arise, which require international intervention, the letter and spirit of the UN Charter with regards to peacekeeping missions must be followed. This essay explains the Chinese perspective on the issue of sovereign equality in UN peacekeeping operations.
China holds that any peacekeeping operation must respect the basic principle of sovereign equality of all nations. China believes in the Westphalian principles of territorial integrity and that such integrity must not be violated. This principle must be extended to the decision-making processes that mandate peacekeeping operations and the views and perspectives of all nations that form the UN must be taken cognizance of. During the Cold, War China felt that the instrument of peacekeeping operations was exploited as a tool by the superpowers to further their interests and not the interests of the nations involved. During the Korean War, the UN peacekeeping mandate in Korea was used as a tool to paint China as an aggressor despite the obvious dynamics of the situation. United Nations Operations in Congo (ONUC) typified US imperialism operating under the UN flag, encroaching upon the sovereignty of newly independent nations in the name of the UN.
Taiwan and Tiber are issues that intensely incense every Chinese. The current progression from peacekeeping to peace enforcing can well be twisted by the Superpower to infringe on China’s internal matters concerning Taiwan and Tibet through the excuse of UN peacekeeping operations. Between 1971 and 1981, China abstained from involving itself in any UN peacekeeping operations discussions because it considered at that time the Cold war dynamics as too divisive to arrive at a real consensus.
That is not to say that China does not support peacekeeping operations. It is a reality that countries in the world differ in size and larger nations have to take more responsibility to resolve issues that impinge on international stability and order. Where the cause has been just and the need to intervene inevitable, China has actively involved itself. For example in 1981, China contributed monetarily to the Cyprus peacekeeping operations. From there on China has consistently, taken part in every peacekeeping operation either through monetary or material support or in some cases direct involvement of its forces in Peacekeeping. This change has been necessitated as China realized that the only way to ensure that principles of national sovereignty are not violated with impunity was by engaging fully in all such missions. Also, China’s growing stature necessitates it to play a more proactive role in the global arena. In the case of Iraq, China had always supported the return of United Nations weapons inspections without preconditions. China had always stated that Baghdad should comply with all UN resolutions on weapons inspections and that Iraq’s sovereignty must be respected. However, China did not agree to the invasion of Iraq. This was clearly stated by the Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, who cautioned the UNSC against taking hasty action on such a major question as authorizing some Member States to take military action against another Member State.
China has always supported the use of UN peacekeeping operations in their benign traditional roles. For example, in the case of the U.N. Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ), China was convinced that the two parties involved in the conflict in Mozambique were ready to resolve their problems through negotiations and that the help of the international community was welcome. In this case, China supported the resolution. Similarly, in Cambodia, the wide and disparate requirements and tasks mandated to the U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) that involved not only holding elections, supervising administration, disarming local militias but also all other broad-based actions required for nation-building were supported by China as a genuine case of peacekeeping operations with a widened scope of duties. In the extant case, China even contributed its military contingent of engineers and observers.
In Somalia, the absolute chaos that prevailed had to be tackled and even though the UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia was delegated to the U.S.-led United Task Force (UNITAF), China supported the motion. China, however, abstained on the issue of Rwanda as there was no real consensus amongst the affected parties in the way forward for a peacekeeping mission. Thus keeping in view the principle of national sovereignty, as also the fact that the Somalia experience was a disaster, China felt that intervening in Rwanda would only serve to increase instability.
The Balkans has proved to be a typical example from the Chinese perspective of how good intentions can be exploited for self-serving interests. The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) created for Croatia was to be used judiciously. However, the UNPROFOR got involved in direct military action and the creation of the Rapid Reaction Force deprived the UNPROFOR of its status as an impartial international peacekeeping force that it was meant to be. Still hoping for the better, China supported the replacement of UNPROFOR with The Implementation Force (IFOR) and its last transformation as the Stabilization Force (SFOR) even though SFOR was operating under peace enforcement rules and not peacekeeping rules. China supported the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) as it felt that there was a need and necessity to stabilize the country. China contributed substantially to the mission of sending in military personnel to help stabilize the situation. The support was vindicated by the fact that UNAMSIL has been one of the rare successes where peace and stability have returned to the country because of UN peacekeeping operations.
China’s perspective on international peacekeeping operations and national sovereignty is quite unambiguous. China holds that peacekeeping operations must not, under any circumstances, undermine national sovereignty. Peacekeeping operations must not be used as a ploy to further hegemonic ambitions. Peacekeeping must not degenerate into coercive peace enforcement and impartiality. Nations that contribute to peacekeeping missions must have an equal say in the matters regarding the peace mission. It is a fact of life that some nations are large and some small and thus have different capability and capacities to contribute to peacekeeping missions. This fact must be understood and ‘aligned’ when deciding on the contours of a peace-keeping operation. Lastly, the principle of sovereign equality in peacekeeping operations must never be forgotten.
Nagel’s Toleration addresses the complexity of the phenomenon of toleration in society. The author presents several important arguments related to the topic of the chapter and shares the relevant information to support his view. Nagel explores the issues related to the legal enforcement of the principles related to people’s values. He shows that the approach to defining the state’s power to force the citizens to be tolerant in certain areas should be thoughtful and well-designed. He reveals certain difficulties that can be met on the way to the popularization of toleration.
For example, he emphasizes that the conflict may arise when defining the values that should guide the government. He argues that the state has the right to enforce only those rules that are based on the values accepted by all of the citizens. The situation when all people have the same beliefs is not possible due to the variety of opinions. Therefore, the state should remain neutral (Nagel 1991). As the government should not force people to follow the laws that do not pay attention to their values, it should remain “impatient” to the issues that raise certain conflicts of interests and worldviews in the society (Nagel 1991, p. 157).
Nagel shows that the government should show respect to all kinds of opinions existing in society. He also emphasizes that the person that thinks that certain values are good should not consider the person that views them differently as bad or irrational one. The author has managed to create a piece of information that encourages the readers to analyze their attitudes to toleration and see it from a different side.
Reference List
Nagel, T 1995, Equality and partiality, Oxford University Press, New York.
The United States Constitution is one of the revolutionary systems of governance that exist in the contemporary world. The primary purpose of the document was to establish societal efficiency that had declined over the years due to slavery, blatant discrimination, and political instability among other letdowns of the ancient governments. Indeed, the document has significantly shaped the social, political, and economic landscapes of the present-day United States.
Nonetheless, the acceptance of the document passed through rigorous debates that slowed down the ratification process. The enactment of the Articles of Confederation took place in the early 1780s in an attempt to create a democratic system of governance for the United States. However, the ratification of the United States Constitution severally failed to materialize as per the expectations due to the existence of independent states that exercised sovereign powers over their jurisdictions.
Consequently, the idea of exercising federalism over the state power raised a plethora of questions amongst the supporters and opponents of the constitution. The effects of power abuse still in the minds of the federalists and the antifederalists, both groups had a hard time to come into terms with the intended ratification and implementation of the United States Constitution. This essay seeks to provide a clear explanation of why I would have backed the implementation of the ‘Plan of the New Federal Government’ in a bid to rationalize equality amongst the United States of America.
Why I Accept the United States Constitution
Multifarious drawbacks that featured in the Articles of the Confederation led to interstate conflicts (Ginsberg et al. 203). According to the authors, each American State had only a single chance of voting in the Congress in spite of its demographic and political representation in the central administration. This situation was a major drawback that demanded for deliberation on the number of votes that were to be possessed by each of the American States.
Ideally, this particular clause was impracticable since the American States differed in terms of both geographic and demographic sizes (Ginsberg et al. 209). This representation of the states created an unfair means of resource allocation that disadvantaged large states such as Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina among others. Astoundingly, the members of the smaller states also opposed the implementation of the Articles of Confederation in response to this weakness. These situations led to the emergence of federalist and antifederalist groups who triggered interstate conflicts.
However, Section 8 of Article 1 of the new United States Constitution addresses the aforementioned issue through the legislative branch of the federal government. Taylor reveals that the Article provides all eligible citizens with the right to vote for the Congress in their respective states by means of the ballot (357). For this reason, the new United States Constitution defends the representation of the citizens of all the 13 American States in the central administration. In my opinion, the Articles of Confederation should have represented all the states in ratios that would have created equality amongst them. Consequently, there was a need to accept the implementation of the ‘Plan of the New Federal Government’.
Secondly, the Articles of Confederation allowed the states to establish independent monetary systems. Each autonomous state used its currency as a representation of sovereignty. This situation weakened the economy owing to hindrance of trade amongst the sovereign states (Renz 81). Some of the states such as New York and Virginia did not only have unwelcoming exchange rates but also imposed inexorable duties on imported goods that passed through their ports to other states.
These monetary defects significantly hindered democracy amongst the states. Additionally, the formation of sovereign states affected their engagement with Britain. As a result, British ports withdrew the handling of imported goods for the self-governing states. However, Article 1 Section 8 of the new United States Constitution has corrected the abovementioned defects. The federal government bears all the powers to make judgments on monetary aspects such as taxes, duties, excises, and regulation of exchange rates not only amongst the United American States but also globally.
In support of the new United States Constitution, Section 8 of Article 1 sought to promote the welfare of all the 13 states of America with respect to all matters that pertain to currency (Taylor 357). The unification of the currency system and enactment of associated rules and regulations has played a crucial role to uplift the economic status of the United States of America.
Furthermore, the governance that functioned under the Articles of Confederation weakened the Congress. The Congress was deprived of its powers to control matters that pertained to tax, foreign regulation, and interstate commerce. According to Bowers, this situation led to insubstantiality of the central administration since the sovereign states had superior powers to control activities within their jurisdictions (99).
As a result, the states failed to operate efficiently due unequal distribution of power amongst the states. Additionally, limitation of power to the Congress had a significant influence on interstate commerce. Taylor posits that some of the states misused their supremacy over the central government to exercise their will on matters that pertained to commerce (357).The neighboring states were treated as foreign nations. As a result, neighbor nations encountered inequitable taxations, expensive license requirements, and unrelenting port protocols among other interstate conflicts (Bowers 112).
In my opinion, these situations created a trade war amongst the competing states because the congress lacked powers to exercise direct control over individuals or the states. Consequently, there was a need for amendment of the Articles of Confederation to reinforce the tax, foreign regulation, and interstate commerce clauses that had led to abuse of state power. Under the new United States Constitution, Section 8 of Article 1 clearly outlines the laws that govern today’s amalgamation of interstate commerce across all the 13 states of America.
Conclusion
This essay has presented the problems of the Articles of Confederation that paved way for abuse of state power. As evidenced in the above discussion, the Federalists eventually accomplished their principal goal of implementing the new United States Constitution to unify the 13 states of America. Amidst the refusal of the document by the antifederalists, ratification and institution of the document in the United States of America played a crucial role of establishing a powerful central government that extended its mandate to the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive arms of government.
For my part, I would have strongly supported the passage of the United States Constitution owing to the benefits that it had over the ancient Articles of Confederation. Thus, ratification and implementation of the ‘Plan of the New Federal Government’ account for the unification of today’s interstate commerce, tax control, and regulation of the US Dollar among other achievements that have shaped the social, political, religious, and economic landscapes of the United States of America.
Works Cited
Bowers, Michael. The Sagebrush State: Nevada’s History, Government, and Politics. Nevada, United States: University of Nevada Press, 2013. Print.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore Lowi, Margaret Weir, Caroline Tolbert, and Robert Spitzer. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. United States: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. Print.
Renz, Jeffrey. “What Spending Clause? (or the President’s Paramour): 1 An Examination Of The Views Of Hamilton, Madison, and Story on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.” The John Marshall Law Review 33.1(1999): 81. Print.
Taylor, Paul. “The Federalist Papers, the Commerce Clause, and Federal Tort Reform.” University Law Review 45.1(2012): 357. Print.
There are two ways to respond to this question. First, the application of justice leads to the creation of an egalitarian society. Second, one can only achieve real justice after the different sectors of society are imbued with an egalitarian ethos. Thus, it is important to figure out the intended meaning of the question raised earlier. If the proponent of the study chooses the first route, then, he or she can argue that justice does not require an egalitarian character. According to Cohen, there is no need to create incentives or coercive measures to create an egalitarian society, because, in an ideal setting, people are driven to help those who are in need (Cohen 2000).
Thus, the spirit of justice is enough to compel people to work harder and serve those who are in need (Beerbohm 2012). In other words, those who are in power can enforce certain rules and standards to establish a certain level of equality in the country (Cohen, 1992). If the government intends to achieve equality, certain measures must be implemented, because according to Cohen, there is a way to persuade people to adhere to the principles of equality.
With regards to the second part of the question, an egalitarian ethos is not needed to achieve justice, because the existence of an egalitarian ethos is not a critical ingredient in creating equality within the country. Equality is not the most important component when it comes to the administration of justice. According to Rawls and other respected economists, inequality is a powerful driver of positive change and economic stability, because the affluent members of society are compelled to contribute to social development.
Do “Rawlsian” have any convincing replies to Cohen’s objections?
Supporters of Rawls have at least two convincing replies to Cohen’s criticism that inequality is not the answer to the economic issues that plagued the country. First, “Rawlsian” will point out the historical evidence that some of the top workers and great innovators in human history were members of the privileged class (Smith, 2002). Second, “Rawlsian” will point out that Cohen does not have an acceptable and effective alternative to an unequal pay scheme. It is a strategy to induce talented people to give their best and work hard.
It has to be made clear that Cohen pointed out the weaknesses in Rawl’s argument when Rawls argued that in the long run, the presence of inequality will benefit the poverty-stricken members of society. Rawls said that the “principle of difference” acts as an incentive mechanism that will help spur economic growth and innovative solutions to present-day problems (Miller, 2015). Cohen said that the effective implementation of laws grounded in the principles of justice, as well as the appropriate information dissemination strategies, will persuade people to go beyond the call of duty.
Cohen’s arguments are nice platitudes, however, the records of human history do not support his claim (Kaufman, 2015). Rawls’ supporters will also say that the history of socialism and communism has nothing to offer, except failure and dictatorial governments. In other words, there is no way to encourage talented people to work harder without an incentive strategy that leads to inequality. It seems like common sense to say that if the wages are the same across the board, then, it will encourage laziness and lackluster performance.
References
Beerbohm, E 2012, In our name: the ethics of democracy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Cohen, G 1992, ‘Incentives, inequality, and community’, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. 13, no. 1, 263-329.
Cohen, G 2000, If you are egalitarian, then, why are you rich, Harvard College Press, Boston, MA.
Kaufman, A 2015, Distributive justice and access to advantage, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Miller, D. 2015. Social Equality. New York: Oxford University Press.
The fact that the realities of today’s living in America the least relate to the societal notion of ‘equality’ is quite self-evident. It simply could not be otherwise in the country, where there are citizens who live in the cardboard boxes, on one hand, and citizens who fly private jets, on the other. However, the absence of even the smallest traces of ‘equality’ in America can be confirmed not only within the context of what accounts for the living standards, on the part of the country’s rich and poor.
Apparently, the same can also be done, in regards to the fact that the American version of ‘democracy’, which supposedly empowers U.S. citizens politically (regardless of what happened to be their social status), is nothing but a euphemism to the notion of the ‘dictatorship of bankers’ – something that cannot have anything in common with the notion of ‘equality’, by definition. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the above-stated at length.
Body of the paper
One of the most fundamental equality-inducing principles of a political governing, which supposedly ensures the proper functioning of democratic institutions in the U.S., is concerned with the assumption that, while casting ballots during the time of elections, citizens are able to affect the course of the country’s continual development. The inducing factor of equality, in this respect, is concerned with yet another assumption that, regardless of what happened to be the extent of a social prominence, on the part of every particular citizen, she or he is believed to exercise the equal amount of a personal influence on the process of a political decision-making in the country.
This again is based upon the idea that, while electing their Senators/Presidents, the Americans do in fact face a qualitative political choice, as every of the would-be-elected politicians are assumed to represent a qualitatively different political agenda.
In light of what appear to be the de facto realities of how the American political system actually functions, however, this idea can be best described as conceptually fallacious. The validity of this statement can be illustrated, in regards to the actual mechanics of Presidential elections in the U.S. After all, does it not look somewhat odd that, despite the fact that the average number of political parties that send their candidates to participate in these elections usually ranges from 10 to 15, it is specifically either the representatives of Democrats of Republicans, who always come out winners in the end? Moreover, as practice indicates, it has always been the case that the so-called ‘independent’ candidates and the candidates that represent different political parties in America rarely score more than 1% of the total number of cast votes.
For example, during the 2008 Presidential elections in the U.S., the voting rates of Barack Obama (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican) accounted for 52.78% and 45.85%, respectively, whereas, their closest rivalry Ralph Nader (‘independent’) ended up favored by only 0.56% of voters (Antle 28). Does it mean that, as compared to Obama and McCain, Nader had shown the lack of ability to indulge in the populist rhetoric? Most definitely not. Yet, there is nothing ‘mysterious’ about the mentioned results of the 2008 Presidential elections – throughout the Presidential campaign’s entirety, American media remained solely focused on covering the election-moves of either Obama or McCain, as if the rest of competing candidates simply did not exist. This, however, cannot be explained by the fact that the Presidential ratings of Obama and McCain were much higher, as compared to the ratings of their rivalries. After all, it is well known to people associated with mass-media that the popularity of just about any American politician positively correlates with the number of times that he or she has been shown on TV.
This leaves us with only one possible explanation to above-described phenomenon – the difference between Republicans and Democrats is merely formal. Both of these political parties work on behalf of America’s actual rulers – the enormously wealthy representatives of the country’s banking elite, which exercise a unilateral control over the functioning of the Federal Reserve System. This also explains the mentioned peculiarities of how American mainstream media go about covering the political developments in the country (especially, the ones that are concerned with Presidential elections) – these media are owned by exactly the same people, who ‘own’ both: McCain and Obama.
Therefore, there is nothing surprising about the fact that, regardless of whether the U.S. President happened to be a Republican or Democrat, the country’s foreign policy remains the same. In essence, it is being concerned with sowing the seeds of chaos all over the world (Basevich 148) under the excuse of protecting ‘democracy’ (the most recent example – Ukraine), as the mean of maintaining the investment-appeal of the so-called ‘U.S. treasuries’ – hence, postponing the time when the U.S. economy collapses, due to the enormous budget-deficit of $1.3 trillion (Young 7). It is namely America’s ‘successes’ in this particular field, which define the qualitative aspects of the country’s domestically deployed social policies, and not the wishful thinking of whoever happened to be the next ‘talking parrot’ in the Oval Office.
What it means is the idea that American citizens are ‘equal’ (at least during the time of elections), is deprived of any rationale, whatsoever. The reason for this is that, as it was shown earlier, in the U.S. there can be no elections per se, but only the periodically occurring public spectacles, loosely related to the notion of ‘elections’. One may wonder why spending money on these spectacles, in the first place? The answer to this question has to do with psychology – people are naturally driven to believe that, while existing as the society’s integral parts, they nevertheless are able to exercise a full mastery over their destinies. This is the reason why they need to be provided with the illusion of ‘choice’.
Allegorically speaking, on a shelve with the bottles of ‘Coca-Cola’ there must be the bottles of ‘Pepsi-Cola’, as the instrument of ensuring the high sales of both of these beverages, which despite tasting exactly the same, are being considered different.
Thus, Presidential elections in the U.S. can be best described not as the instrument of citizens’ ‘equalization’, but rather as the mean of reducing the measure of their discontent with the rationally recognized fact that they have no influence, whatsoever, on how the American political system operates.
The additional mechanism of depriving American ordinary citizens of even a hypothetical opportunity to have a voice on how their country is being run, deployed by the America’s rich and powerful, is concerned with the fact that the U.S. Presidential elections take place on an ‘indirect’ basis. That is, American citizens initially elect the members of the so-called ‘electoral colleges’, which consequently elect the President. Based on what happened to be the density and ‘usefulness’ of the population in every particular state, each of these states is assigned with its own ‘voting rate’. For example, the ‘voting rate’ of California is 55, whereas, the individual ‘voting rates’ of Utah, Montana and Alaska account for 3.
This, of course, creates the situation when, within the methodological framework of how the American political system functions, some of the U.S. states are being naturally deemed ‘important’, while the others suffer the consequences of being considered ‘unimportant’. It is understood, of course, that this adds to the political disfranchisement of the ordinary Americans even further, because the mentioned situation creates the objective preconditions for a ‘political worth’ of every particular citizen to be somehow associated with where he or she happened to reside.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that the U.S. does not provide its citizens with the right to enjoy a de facto political equality, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. The described state of affairs, in respect to the subject matter in question, appears to have been predetermined by a number of different factors, the main of them was the establishment of the privately owned Federal Reserve System in 1913 – contrary to the most fundamental provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Ever since then, American ordinary citizens have been deprived of their right to take an active part in the functioning of the U.S. political system, while turned into nothing short of ‘statists’ in the political games of the country’s most powerful bankers, who ‘pull strings’. This is exactly what the American version of ‘democracy’ stands for.
Works Cited
Antle, James. “Trying to Be Mr. Right.” American Spectator 45.5 (2012): 26-30. Print.
Basevich, Andrew. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Young, Jane. “Washington Record Second Trillion-Plus Deficit in U.S. History.” Human Events 66.36 (2010): 7-7. 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 one’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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 poor’s 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 one’s 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 people’s 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 & D’Augustino 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 women’s 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 & D’Augustino 2013). Accordingly, limiting other people’s 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 men’s central roles in politics (Amartya 2011). Liberal egalitarians do not advocate the abandonment of traditional women’s 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 & D’Augustino, 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.