The Purpose of Government

At the first glimpse, people may think that the purpose of government would be to abide by what the people say. While this is an important part of the workings of the government, it should not be the purpose of government. When the people as simply a majority determine laws it can and will be detrimental. As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Man is fallible and this is why government is a necessary evil. Our government has strayed from its rightful purpose of protecting the individual's inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and Property and must be returned to them or crumble.

What happens then when the government values the popular opinion above the rights of the individual? Not only will it stray from its rightful purpose but it also results in many practical impacts. In his book Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell lays out one such impact. The importance of allowing fluctuations in prices, reflecting the protection of Individual Rights, as well as the detriment of artificially fixing the prices of goods based upon the will of the people. To illustrate, Sowell provides a scenario, in which a natural disaster has left many people homeless and increased the demand for any remaining shelter. Nearby hotels will be flooded with people needing a place to stay and in accordance with high demand and limited supply the hotels will naturally raise prices. Most people will see this as evil hotels exploiting the poor disaster victims when, in reality, it is economics at work. It is not only beneficial to the hotels, but also surprisingly so to the victims as well. Consider a family of four or five. Under normal circumstances and normal pricing they would likely occupy two rooms, each with two beds. However, with increased pricing, it is more probable that the same family would rent only one room, sharing beds and sleeping on the floor instead. The higher prices mean that people will be much less likely to use excess rooms and will probably make do with less space. Assuming friends as well as family members and even neighbors start to do this as well the capacity of the hotel can easily double with a relatively small amount of discomfort to the occupants. This is where Individual Rights and Popular Sovereignty can be clearly differentiated. If the Government values Popular Sovereignty it is going to cap the price of hotel rooms because that is what the people want. This of course doesn't allow for price increases, which will encourage people to use more rooms, leaving more people without a place to sleep. If, however, the government allowed the price fluctuation, they are respecting the Individual Rights of the hotels as well as benefiting the victims of the disaster.

The ideas of positive rights and negative rights in government magnify the importance of only defending Individual Rights. Negative rights, equivalent to Individual Rights, detail what people cannot do to other people. It is a set of limitations which say you have the right to these things, therefore they cannot be taken away as opposed to the idea of positive rights where the phrase is changed to say you have the right to certain things, therefore we, the government, must ensure you obtain them. To understand why Individual Rights and not positive rights should be respected, imagine two scenarios. In the first situation a man is being robbed and in the other the government is providing him with free health care. In the first, negative rights give the man the right to defend his Individual Rights from the robber and stop the robber from taking the man's property or harming his life. In the other, instead of having inalienable rights the man is allowed to protect, he is given rights such as health care and affordable housing which someone else is obligated to give the man. The problem with this second situation is that it is not unlike the first. Reverse it and imagine the man as the doctor being forced under law to provide health care freely or imagine the citizen whose taxes are paying a doctor to provide that service. This is what the philosopher Bastiat describes as Legal Plunder. Explained as, creating law that makes stealing, or any other violation of Individual Rights, legal and lawful. Bastiat aptly describes our second situation within the scope of the government in this satirical paragraph:

“Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give the tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.”

The logic Bastiat asks his reader to follow ends up going in circles. It is a mindset based on positive rights and following our second situation. It leads us to the question, “from whom will the state take the tools of production?” In the example of Health Care, the government gives the service to those who can't afford it and it pays for it out of the taxpayers pocket. The problem? The recipients are taxpayers and the government is simply making decisions for them. Slowly but surely taking over people's lives. This is why it is of paramount importance to protect Individual Rights at all costs. In the U.S. the governing authority has deviated from this purpose of the law, which is not to provide comforts for some at the expense of others, nor to appease the masses, but to “prevent injustice from reigning,” as Bastiat put it.

The purpose, then, of government is not to appease the masses by giving them rights, nor to decide what its citizens require. Its purpose is only to protect the people's God-given Individual Rights. These are the reasons that any and every government must value Individual Rights and why our government must change directions and return to Individual Rights if the United States is to continue as the great nation that she is.

Some people, mainly debaters in NCFCA, have taken the position that the U.S. should institute a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. They give the reasons that we need this FTA and they say that the only reason it is not going through now is that India has problems with agricultural parts of the deal. The proposition is simple; pass the FTA with out the agricultural section. But I would argue it is not so simple, and it won't work. There are two main reasons that this plan will fail and many disadvantages to implementing a FTA with India.

The first reason that the FTA won't work is because of the incredible small impact it will have on India. With Exports increasing by just 1.14% and Imports increasing by a mere 1.84%. A US-Indo FTA is obviously not going to do any good.

The second reason is that the issue of agriculture is not the only thing hindering these FTAs. In negotiations with the EU over a FTA the issues of Intellectual Property Rights, competition, agriculture, public procurement, market access and transparency were all hindrances, not just agriculture.

Disadvantages of this plan include, an increase in the sex trade, economic meltdown, increased environmental impact and promotion of international crime. All these spurning from globalization which is a result of increased Free Trade.

Clearly now is not the time to initiate a FTA between the U.S.A. and India.

Orwell's Message

In the book 1984 George Orwell uses the lives of his two main characters and their outcome to covey a warning of what may come to be in the year 1984. In the book there are many contrasts between Winston and Julia, the main characters, yet in the end the result is the same.
Orwell's characters have different views of the Party even though they manifest themselves in the same way. Hate of the Party. Julia, since she hadn't lived before the Party she knew, “nothing else, accepting the Party as something inalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against it's authority but simply
evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog.” Winston, however, was older, although he did not remember much, he did remember that there was a time before the party. His memory carried with it the hope that party could be destroyed and drive to assist in it's destruction. Winston put it into words by saying,
“I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it, even when I did the falsification myself. After the thing is done, no evidence remains. The only evidence is in my own mind, and I don't know with any certainty that any other human being share my memories.”
More evidence of this difference of their difference is seen when Winston is reading “The Book”, an Illegal book written by a underground network of rebels, to Julia. Winston, who is throughly engrossed in every detail of the book, finds that Julia has fallen asleep, obviously not interested. Again, Julia's mentality is contrasted to Winston's. Winston wants to understand the truth, and he wants to know the “why” of things. Whereas Julia is not interested in such things, she wishes merely to dodge the Party and live life. It does not matter to Julia whether the Party is telling the truth or not when it has no impact on her. These different mannerisms go a long way in determining how they live their lives. Although both Julia and Winston are both party members that hate the party, they differ in how they live their lives. Julia is a mischievous individual who likes to have “fun”, this is seen by the many times that she sneaks away from the telescreens to be with Winston during the book. Julia puts up a very convincing act that removes all suspicion from her while she sneaks out with Winston when no one is looking. Winston on the other hand lives a life of hope. He tries to make it look like he participating in things such as the Two Minutes Hate everyday hoping that someday the party would be destroyed by either the mysterious group called the “Brotherhood” or the lowest social group in Oceania, the proles. Another example comes from the time when Winston brings up the idea that, “we
are the dead.” He submits to Julia the idea that they are going to die no matter what, whether it is sooner or later, they are going to die. When Julia hears it, however, she brushes it off, tells him to forget it, and moves on to planning their next meeting. This shows how Winston is a deep-thinker, who wants to destroy the Party, whereas Julia is a schemer, who believes that the Party in unalterable, living life for the sake of evading the Party and living to see another day, she has no desire to find the truth. The only similarity between them is the fact that they both hate the Party and they both hate Big Brother.
In the end both Winston and Julia were “converted” my the party, they denounced each other and the party had won. Orwell used his two different characters to show that some people will fight and some people will evade, but the end result will be the same. His warning was that a Government similar to Ingsoc could arise and take over in such a way that they could destroy all hope and wipe out history no matter if you fight or dodge, you will be overcome by it.

Paul and the Toilet

It was a mild winter day. Cold, but not cold enough to stop Timothy's mom from undertaking the task of assembling her team of daughters and searching the woods for a small rusted stake that indicated the property line. In the meanwhile Timothy, who was in the house diligently studying his math, heard the grating of porcelain on porcelain and then a crash. For a split second there was silence. The next thing he knew Paul, who had been playing with his legos and roaming the house up until this point, shot out of the bathroom like Luke escaping the exploding Death Star and there was a loud roar as if a small jet was taking off. Timothy rushed into the bathroom to find it was already starting to flood. As is happened Paul had just gone to the bathroom and found that the toilet would not flush after he had used it. It had been having problems recently and Paul had seen his mom take the back off of it and fix something in the mysterious black of the back of the toilet. Half moved by the necessity to fix the toilet and half motivated by a curiosity to know what was in the back of the toilet, Paul slid the heavy cover off of the back of the toilet, not thinking ahead far enough to know what he was going to do with it. With a crash it fell to the floor conveniently shearing off the pipe that brought water into the toilet at the same time. As soon as it fell Paul panicked and ran and hid as Timothy rushed into the bathroom. After he had established that the bathroom was very wet, getting more wet by the second, and that the valve had been sheared off the wall along with the pipe he went out and yelled for his mom not knowing what else to do. His mom got there a minute or two later. She then quickly assessed the situation and immediately went to the breaker panel and and flipped all of the breakers, knowing that one of them would shut off the water pump. Within 30 seconds the water had completely subsided and we began to clean up and repair the damage. Needless to say their dad, who happened to be in Sudan for a week was not thrilled to find out that his recently redone bathroom was soaked, along with insulation that had just been put up under the house.

Brisingr Reading Jornal

Today's Date:

11/20/2008

Title, Author, Publisher, Copyright date:

Brisingr, Christopher Paolini, Alfred A Knopf, Copyright 2008

Briefly Describe:

Brisingr is a book about a young farmer who's fate is to be a Dragon Rider and to free Alagaesia from the evil Galbatorix.

Protagonist,

Eragon, Saphira

Antagonist,

Galbatorix

other major characters

Arya, Nasuada, Oromis, Glaedr, Roran

Briefly describe the setting.

This book is set in a fictional world comparable to the Medevil times in our world, only with Dragons and Magic.

Is the point of view first person, third person, or third person omniscient?

Third person

Summarize the plot.

Eragon and Saphira, rescue Katrina and then find a chance to return to Ellesmera for a few days of teaching and to obtain Eragon's new sword before returning to help Nasuada take a city.

Describe the theme (the quintessential meaning or purpose of the book in two sentences)

For Eragon and Saphira to obtain knowledge about Galbatorix's power and how they might defeat him as well as advancing their own abilities so that they will be able to defeat him and Murtaugh when the time comes.

What is the author's worldview? (maybe the characters display behavior to support a particular view)

Probably Atheist. The Elves in the book were placed above everyone else intellectually because they had magic and a more “complete” view of the world. Paolini seemed to infer that the Elves were correct and that everyone else wasn't.

Why did you like or dislike this book?

I like this book, first, because it is well written, it easily draws you into the story. The second reason is that Paolini realistically portrays the ability of having magic, making this power extremely desirable to the reader. In essence Paolini draws you into the story in a way that makes you want to be in the story, you want to be a Dragon Rider.

Frankenstien

In the book “Frankenstein” Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates a Monster who, through a long chain of events, develops a hatred for his creator. Striving to make Victor suffer as much as possible, the creature kills everyone from Victors family, sparking a hunger for vengeance within Victor. With feelings of vengeance and a responsibility to rid the world of the monster he brought into existence Victor starts to chase his creature. After many months of being but a few days behind the monster Victor obtains a faster dog-sled and begins to gain ground. Gaining quickly, Victor is merely hundreds of feet behind the monster after just one day. Yet when he has finally gained the hope that he may overtake the Monster the ice breaks around him, leaving him to float to his death on a small portion of ice. Victor has lost all hope when he sees a ship. He is saved. They take him on board and there he meets the Capitan after having been somewhat nurtured back to health. It is under the care of this Capitan that Victor spends his last days. During this time do they benefit from each other? Are they friends? How do their personalities compare? And most of all, why does this matter?

While Victor and the Capitan have some similarities they are, for the most part, different. Victor took on the task of creating a being and giving life to it. A being who's actions Victor is indirectly responsible for because he created it. All the deaths it caused were his fault. When Victor had finished crafting his monster and had given it life he went into shock from the sight of his monster, showing a very weak resolve and resulting in the allowance of a whole chain of painful events. Events not only hurtful to him but also for many others. Events that could have otherwise been avoided. On the other side of things we see the Capitan, however, who was exploring new lands. He was not creating something that would have terrible, lasting consequences or cause innocent people to die. The only people he put at risk were himself and his crew, and his crew came willingly. Both the Capitan and Victor have very different personalities and pursuits.

Despite their differences, though, both Victor and the Capitan could help each other. Victor helped the Capitan by giving him his story that he might learn from Victor's mistakes. He also gave the Capitan and his crew valuable encouragement even if it didn't cause them to press on in their explorations. The Capitan also helped Victor, primarily by saving him from death but also in a few other ways. For instance the Capitan was a friend to Victor in his last days when victor had no friends. He also recorded Victor's story so that it wouldn't be lost. Through all of this Victor and the Capitan mutually helped each other.

During Victors brief stay with the Capitan they become friends. They take an immediate liking to each other, Victor because the Capitan saved his life, and the Capitan because Victor had travel as far as he had, only on a dog-sled. It didn't stop there though. As they got to know each other better Victor came to like him because of how courages he was and the Capitan was in awe of everything Victor has been through, admiring his determination to destroy the monster, among other things.

These two men though somewhat different, were mutually helpful to each other and even became friends in the little time the were together. Through the chance meeting of Victor and the Capitan, Victor's story was preserved and the Capitan carried on the important lesson that was to be learned from Victor's mistakes as well as the model of determination to do the right thing that the Capitan saw in Victor.

Missile Defense with India

India and Pakistan are on the verge of a cold war. Pakistan is building up it's nuclear arsenal and India, feeling threatened, does the same out of fear of being wiped out without defense. With this build up comes the possibility that one of the countries, whether on purpose or by accident, will fire one of their weapons on their neighbor. One missile could and most likely would start an onslaught that would entirely desolate both countries. How is this of any concern of us here in the U.S.? It is a chance for the U.S. to gain favorable relations with India.

India is, right now, doing everything they can to keep themselves from being destroyed by Pakistan. To India that means building up their nuclear weapons, but if they had a system by which they could protect themselves would they continue to build these weapons? What if they had access to the worlds most advanced missile defense and radar system? With the peace of mind that comes with knowing that a nuclear missile could not reach their soil before being destroyed India would have no need to further their nuclear program and would still maintain their national sovereignty that they hold so dearly.

The U.S. has such a system, it is called the U.S. Patriot. Allowing India to use a Patriot system would be sure to put us in a favorable position with India as well as preventing India and Pakistan from destroying each other.