Written by FM for CS 151 Blogging related to ethics/politics/economics Due: September 21,2008

1st entry-3 points Argument on minimal government concept Some libertarians argue that, from a moral standpoint, if actions of an ordinary thief are wrong, then the actions of a government who taxes certain people in order to support others are wrong too. I disagree with their argument because at some point, corporations and wealthy people are doing harm to others and the environment. Many corporations harvest natural resources and pollute the environment, and therefore they are responsible to give something back to the community. Taxes are one of the ways. Hospers did mention that people will never go hungry: "with the restrictions removed, the economy would flourish as never before" (pg 326). Yet is it always true that with the restrictions removed, more and more consumer needs, will be satisfied by the expansion of existing business and establishment of new business? Is it always true that the employment rate will increase? Is it always the case, as I think that those who control the business will gain much more profit, and they will not think about assisting the needy (unless it will lead to even more profit) and thus the poor will be even poorer. In class, we discussed about how government plays an important role to supervise companies' operation. There should be regulations and laws enforced by the government so that these companies will keep producing goods and services that are up to standard. In the social condition of minimal government interference as suggested by Hospers, big companies that have achieved monopoly in the business will start producing products that will not last long just for profit. Consumers are forced to buy these products and eventually, they will be dissatisfied because the products are not worth the money they spent. (Word count: 283 words) [Labels: Ethics/Politics/Economics, Hospers, Libertarianism]

Written by FM for CS 151 Blogging related to ethics/politics/economics Due: September 21,2008

2nd entry-4 points The Story of Stuff a review Annie Leonard's "The Story of Stuff" discussed about a linear system, which involves extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. "The Story of Stuff" make me think about how easy it is for many of us to toss away our stuff even if it is still in good condition, and it is easy to get ourselves a new one without being aware of where do all our stuff go after that. Recalling from our discussion in previous classes, about rights, it makes me sick to think of how big corporations take lands from the people of Third World countries. They build their factories there, harvest the natural resources and the people who live there have no other choice but to work for them. These people have their rights being violated. The world of capitalism we lived in, force us to buy stuff. She did mentioned fashion and advertisements that somehow tell us that whatever we have now is not enough and we should buy more and more stuff. For the most of this part I agree with her. But when she mentioned perceived obsolescence, and compared the flat screen monitor with the big, cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor, I have trouble to agree with the way she represent the idea. Isn't the flat screen monitor a better innovation than the latter? It takes less space, and much lighter. Furthermore, a flat screen monitor uses LESS energy than a CRT. We have "a system in crisis", according to "The Story of Stuff". But, it is wrong to say that "it's just not working" since this system has benefited a lot of us. If it is not because of this system, you will never have met the Internet. "A system that doesnt waste resources or people, sustainability, equity, renewable, local living economy as suggested by her may be possible to achieved. But that is not the question. The question is, whether the government and the corporations that played the most important roles in this system are ready to give up the profitmaking paradigm that has been their purpose of existence nowadays. Remember, in this capitalist world, if a corporation does not make profit, it will disappear. (Word count: 363 words) [Labels: Ethics/Politics/Economics]

Written by FM for CS 151 Blogging related to ethics/politics/economics Due: September 21,2008

1st response-2 points "Don't Put All Your Eggs In One Basket: Corn" Pollan, in his writing mentioned about the surplus chemical of ammonium nitrate after the World War II. I wonder whether it is a smart move to make fertilizers out of the chemical. Of course, it is a great source of nitrogen, which is essential to all living creatures, including corn. One might say that people at that time were just utilizing the war's leftover, in fact where else could they dump the unused chemicals? But, now we have seen the harm that these chemical fertilizers had caused to our soil, water resources, and animals when they are used on plants, particularly corn. Like Eric said, in this entry "[w]hat if there were to be a repeat of the infamous Irish Potato Famine, but this time with corn?". In the end, the things discussed about corn lead to one conclusion: capitalism. Our 'driven-to-solely-profit-making' world is the main reason why these chemical fertilizers are still being used on corn, and why our steers are still being fed with corn (as Pollan later, discussed in his writing). It seems almost impossible to reverse these acts, and let everything being handled by nature alone. This is what Karl Marx described in one of his book, in Frankenstein analogy of how it is out of control from the creators (human beings) and how destructive it is. (Word count: 221 words) 2nd response-2 points "Red Team Ethics/ Politics/Economics"
Hull says that rights "are founded in a political system." (pg 30a) And in class, most of us agree that the presence of a political system is important to protect people and their rights. But we also have to keep in mind that the rights within that system are insecure. We cannot depend totally on a political system to protect our rights. As Foner discussed in his writing, freedom (which I take as one of the human rights) is a matter of political struggle. What if something happened to the political system? What if the government is no longer able to protect its people? What if there are other nations invading our nation and they start to mess up with our life? Our rights to run our own country will be violated. Our rights to live a peaceful life will be violated. That is the case if we look towards the threat from outside of the nation. But what if the government itself is being monopolized by corrupt people? They have the power to modify the laws, which means they have the power to eliminate (or at least to limit) our rights. Therefore, in my opinion, despite of having their rights protected by the political system, it is not good enough. People still have to struggle in order to keep their rights, and to maintain their freedom.

(Word count: 227 words)