A Parents Right to Filter?

In discussing filter Lessig makes it seem as though it is a parents right to filter what they let their children watch or hear or in general encounter. In the case of internet or TV parents often choose to filter things of adult content. Namely, this means things that involve violence or sex. There is no real discussion on what parents can choose to filter because children are generally allowed to be raised by their parents in any way their parents deem is correct. This allows parents to brain wash their kids. Often the kids who come from these households are called ‘sheltered’ or ignorant and it is left at that. A parent’s choice of educating a child can do harm to him or her. Some religious beliefs might prohibit modern medicine, a child who learns this might die of an illness because his complete understanding of medicine is that it is evil and its use would send him to hell. Girls brought up in polygamous societies view their marriages at a young age to older men as normal and thereby are deprived of alternative lives. Parents who prevent their kids from learning about evolution keep them from sciences’ best understanding of the origin of the homo sapien. Parents can indoctrinate their children into an endless list of false beliefs that would seriously alter their lives and possibly prevent them from living a normal life. To what extent should parents be allowed to dictate their children’s understanding of the world? While freedom of speech might be harmful in the circulations of rumors as truth, the filtering of speech can have the same effect.

Free Speech, Freedom from Government Retaliation

Lessig says in code that the right to free speech protects citizens from retaliation by the government for speaking one’s mind. It is imaginable that this amendment would rightly protect those who sought reform in an inefficient (or perhaps even corrupt) government. A government afraid of change could abuse its sovereign power by imprisoning those who spoke out against it. This practice is common amongst authoritarian forms of governments. Free speech is not compatible with dictatorships for example and is therefore not permissible in countries under those conditions. Dictators like Hitler and Pol Pot would throw anyone who were against them in jail or execute them because if they were to gain broad support they could possibly pose a problem. The way these people would gain support would be by communicating their ideas, this is what speech is. In the case of the United States, our society vehemently protects the right to free speech because the opposition to it is reminiscent of these authoritarian regimes. Yet, free speech thrives in the US and our government is not endangered by it, but could some speech be harmful to our government and our society as a whole? Look at conspiracy theories and the people that believe them. These ideas develop a following of people that basically become skeptical of the government. This is allowed by freedom of speech. Would it be possible for the perfect conspiracy theory to be developed that could convince enough people to overthrow the government. What limits need to be placed on free speech that would prevent the perfect liar from creating a following?

Internet Free Speech

We have been discussing how computers and the internet have shown the true meaning of free speech. The thing that was impressive to me was the YouTube clip that had the most comments. I was shocked to hear that something that actually had some meaning and relevance to the world was the most discussed, rather than any accident or "kittens in nun outfits." The structure of the video, the text responses and the video responses show that YouTube has done some good in society: it has facilitated free speech and the right for debate. Now, tons of people with conflicting viewpoints can meet in one forum to enlighten each other and gain insight to better themselves. Even ten years ago, worldwide "instant" debate was not possible; at least not amongst "common" human beings. World leaders, celebrities, athletes, and anyone greater than just a civilian of the world could duke it out intellectually via the television. The rest of us could only watch and discuss the issues among an audience of our peers. Although taken for granted, the fact that we can instantly contact people is a huge innovation and has developed the full aspect of free speech, because now we can openly say what we want while hearing all oppositions clearly and without conflict. However, the internet hinders free speech as well because of the fact that it is easy to filter material. Filtering causes ones views to not fully develop, as they cannot consider all other alternatives, but the fact that any and every opinion possible is just a click away furthers our culture and strengthens the real meaning of free speech.

Black Team- remember we are meeting after class on thursday. Please have your top five choices picked out.

Right TO Speak

The right to free speech in United State is the right to be free from the punishment from the government in retaliation for at least some (probably most) speech. (Code, pg 233). In United State, the first amendment will protect the free speech. First amendment is expressly prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peacely assembles, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There are many way nowadays that encouraged the free speech, for example the Net. The Internet let people to talk about whatever they want. Blog is one of the medium that allowed people to talk about their idea or opinion or thought that they have on particular topic. But, there is also type of speech that should have the restriction, for example about porn and spam. There is restriction about who can access through this kind of free speech. In the real space the block to that kind of free speech not work much. So, it depends on how people look the free speech. The government has software that will filter the information that they do not want public to read. Besides that, there are also private filter. For example the father does not want his son/daughter to read about certain religion. So, he will set up firewall which will filter all the sites that related to that religion. But on the other hand, this practice will get in the way to protecting free speech.

Is filtering harmful?

The subject of filtering and free speech is currently being addressed in class. As a citizen of the United States, when I hear the term "free speech," I associate it with being able to say what I want (minus hate speech) without fear of imprisonment. Free speech is a value that is held high in the United States and it should be kept that way. Filtering, however, is more controversial. Is it really bad to not be exposed to the "ugliness" of life? Lessing believes that there "is value in confronting the unfiltered." Although facing some of the darker aspects of life is necessary at some points, having sad things being placed in front of us constantly is harmful as well. People thrive on happiness. As studies have shown, happy people are more efficient, better to be around, and are a plus to society. Negative or unhappy people are a drain on society. If homelessness, poverty, and horrible crimes are constantly being shown to people; the end result will be a nation full of sad, upset souls. The nation as a whole will be unhappy and unproductive and a lower economy will result. Information should be filtered on the internet. A internet surer shoul dnot have to face problems when looking around. People are still going to live and exist in the real world and they will still have to see and deal with problems there. There should be no problem in making the internet an oasis, because it is impossible for people to live in the internet and never face real problems in the real world (if they are actual people who live and work and do not rely on the government for money).

black team- please email me at smileydi@comcast.net with your email so I can let you access the team website. Thanks. DM

Creative Commons

A few weeks ago we discussed the idea of the creative commons in class. In the technology age, being able to shares intellectual properties with legal reprocutions is very important for innovators in music, film, literature and the rest of the arts we enjoy every day. I believe that, although some people think it may be unsafe, the creative commons concept is a good idea because it supports progress in arts and sciences. With the right restrictions, which it seems that the administrators of this idea have down well, people will be able to collaborate freely on ideas that previously required a lot of signatures and permissive phone calls. We can see that a lot of development has come out of this concept: musical artist such as Danger Mouse and Girl Talk. Although they make have had to go through days of contacting the original artists to get the rights to use these songs, with the creative commons anyone can use the music on the website to create musical mash-ups of their own. But it extends beyond music; multiple authors can write a novel together, or a few scientists can combine hypotheses to develop a new theory. The possibilities are endless and it is all based off of the simple saying "Two heads are better than one." I feel that if this movement explodes we will see a new age of innovation we people work together to create great things, and because of this movement there will be less legal hurdles for creators to jump over before they can use their creativity to change the world.

Google Phone

In class the other day an interview was read out loud concerning Google's brand new cell phone software. Their angle on how to top Apple's iPhone seems effective, but any smart consumer can see that they are "paying" for functions in a different way. Google says they are eliminating paying for air-time; the owner of the phone will not have to pay for accessing the internet on their T-Mobile G1 (and other phones in the future that may be released with this software). The catch is that there will be increased advertising on the phone to make up for the profits lost. Now, we have already seen the dangers of digital advertising on our computers; from cookies to the dreaded "consumer panopticon." However, introducing these things into mobile devices creates a much scarier version of "personal data collection." Not only can the person's interests and internet history be tracked, but also their phone number, and, given the GPS included in most high-end phones, their location. Information like this could be analyzed to determine their whereabouts at certain times, and further used to "spam" users in other aspects of their life. The other concern is that a phone is on someone's person a lot more than they are at a computer; once again leading to more data to be sent to the "consumer panopticon." While most consumers who buy the new T-Mobile G1, complete with google's cell phone interface, will enjoy their monetary savings and free web access, they are paying for these freedoms. The cost? One of the most valuable morals protected in our society: their privacy.

THAT IS MY PRIVACY

What do you feel if someone do stalk u, track everything that you bought, where u go and your wealthy background? That is what the technology nowadays did. Through the technology for example the "consumer panopticom" system, our information is being sold to the big company. The information is used by them to send the advertisement or offer that will attract our interest to buy their product. As for me I do not like to expose my information to others, so I do not agree with the "consumer panopticon" system. The reason I object this system because it will give disadvantage to me. The companies will give me junk email that will make my inbox full which will encourage me do not checking my inbox frequently. This habit will cause me missed the important email. On the other hand, by getting the advertisement and the offer that satisfied me, I will spend a lot of money on shopping rather than saving all the money for the emergency or for my future. That offer also may have the trick behind it. For example, the offer only tells us about the advantage or the good things about the product but do not include the bad side of the product. The offer is specially design based on our favorable that they get through the "consumer panopticon" system. So, in my opinion this system should be tightening. The system need to ask for our permission before selling or giving our information to the other company.

Privacy?

What is privacy? Privacy means the quality from being secluded from the present or views of others. What is called private is differ among cultures and individual but do have some common. Privacy also can be seen as an aspect of security. We do have laws that protect our privacy, but do all laws protect our privacy totally? We may do not know how our information is collected as the technology nowadays can collect the information without our sense. For example the website that collect information about their consumer through the use of "cookies". Cookies will collect all the information about that consumer and enable websites to tailor their presentation. Can you imagine if your children did give all the information without you acknowledgement? So, there is legislation that will protect your privacy which is Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, 1998). This act enhances parent involvement in a child's on-line activities. (Hull, page 97). This act is very important in order to avoid the collection of children's personal information collected without the parental consent. As we know, people do look privacy on a different sight. The European Union's treatment of privacy is very different from United State. Data can only be processed for the announced purposes, contrary to the common U.S practice. The European Union has a higher level in protecting the privacy compared to U.S. system. Which one is better? So, should U.S change the practice of privacy system to enhance the business bond with the European Union?

black team- please email me at smileydi@comcast.net with your email so I can let you access the team website. Thanks. DM

Control Vs. Access

When dealing with the intellectual commons, sticky situations arise. How much information should be accessible? Which is more important: control or access? Information should be readily accessible. With the youth generation now, they have grown up being able to get any information that is needed: anytime, anyplace, for any occasion. Thus, as a culture, the youth can not understand the problem of not having access. The parents of this generation do remember what it is like not to have any answer at their finger tips. I have heard horror stories of my parents having to look through a card catalog to find books and make note cards to find answers to simple questions. The thought of that hassle makes me sick to my stomach. When dealing with access versus control, both are important. While access is vital to keep the nation and the people who live in it component and informed, the thought of protecting the intellectual commons should be taken into account. If the intellectual commons are not protected, then there is absolutely no incentive to create or add to important ideas. This could be the downfall of the nation as we know it if the intellectual commons are not protected in one way or another. Thus, laws need to be in place, such a copyright laws, to protect valuable information so that those responsible will be compensated for their time and effort. Rather than just allowing everyone to access the information and do with it what they will, this will provide a safe haven for those who desire to create and allow those who want to learn to be informed.

Targeted Advertising: Good or bad?

How important is privacy? How much personal information should be out for common knowledge? Do interests and hobbies need to be private information or is that knowledge acceptable for all to know? Lessing introduces the concept of "consumer Panopitocon," the use of personal information for better targeted advertising. Although Lessing appears to be concerned about this type of advertising, he does not state any radical opinions. He merely wants the consumer to be wary in the future. This type of advertising could be beneficial and devastating. As for positive side of better-targeted advertising, much less time and energy can be used to find, locate, and purchase a necessary commodity. If a hiker receives new information and advertisements about the latest hiking boots, the hiker could go to the source and purchase it, without spending a long while looking through stores and online shopping centers. In addition, the shopping experience will be much more enjoyable without dealing with unnecessary and time consuming ads. However, there is a major pitfall in the world of targeted advertisement. The United States of America already has an incredible amount of debt. Targeted advertisement could prey on the weak of the nation and destroy the economy due to the debt created by consumers with lack of will power. Although the purchase might not be necessary, many people might be much more tempted to buy something related to a passion or hobby of theirs than just a random old ad that is not applicable to their desires.

Privacy and the Protection of Dignity

In describing different forms of privacy Lessig names the protection of dignity as one of the factors. The idea is that if the police search your home you are suspected of hiding something. If you are in fact not you may claim that the search itself was an offense to your dignity because you should be considered above hiding things from the police. Is the act offending someone in and of itself worth legislating? People can claim offense for variety of reasons. Eating meat actually offends some animal rights activists. Should we make sure meat is not consumed in the presence of those people? Protecting someone from offense is not reason enough to suspend searches as people can evidently be offended for irrational reasons. Searches on the other hand are justifiable if there is a possibility they could turn up what is being sought. If someone stole the offering plate from church during the service everyone who attended the service is suspect. They are all possible the thief. Should the priest not be searched because it would be offense to his dignity? Maybe, but when it turns out that the priest did steal the money then the protection of his dignity seems silly. It is impossible to determine whether a person would or would not be suspect; that is the reason the search is being performed. I disagree that a person ought to have his privacy protected on the basis of protecting his dignity. Instead people who are being searched should be more rational and understand the necessity of the search.

Proliferation of Market Information

The idea of collecting information about consumers to increase profits sounds like another unchecked evil of the corporate world. Lessig would call this manipulation. By providing an individual with the right product at the opportune time, the individual make a less than free choice to buy that product. Certain factors are necessary to consider this malicious manipulation. First, the company must obtain information about the individual in a way that would not be permissible by the consumer. Second, a better product (or at least a reasonable alternative) must exist. If there is no alternative product then the consumer would either end up buying the product anyway, or not benefit from the use of the product. In this case all the company did by offering the product to the consumer would be saving the consumer the burden of search for the right product. In fact, the company is making the market more efficient. A more efficient market eliminates waste which can only lead to benefits overall. In reality, when a consumer is presented with a product that meets his needs he cannot be sure whether there is an alternative product which would better suit his circumstances. The smart consumer needs to perform the search anyway and the market is no more efficient than it was. If the consumer is presented with all choices based on collected information about his preferences then he can be sure enough to not perform the search. That means the products should be presented by not the producers but by a third party. All these stipulations to create market efficiencies with collected information are beyond our abilities today but is something that may be available in the future.

Apple and Intellectual Property

A few weeks ago we listened to a radio clip that was about Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple. The speaker was concerned with the CEO's intentions to limit the Apps for the iPhone. He has the ominous power to check out any and every application that anyone may develop for the iPhone. If he doesn't like it, he can make sure that it never surfaces on the commercial market; if he does see potential in it, he can skim profits off the top. This is a regulation on the intellectual property of others that I do not agree with. I'm sure that the "creative commons" would not approve of this either, as some of their guidelines included the making of profit off of another's idea. This code is intellectual property because of its non-rivalrous nature; Steve Jobs or the creator of the code could reproduce it without impeding on its function or efficiency. I can see how Steve Jobs could feel entitled to some profit, as he created the property that runs these pieces of code. But he did not think of these applications, he did not go through the laborious process of developing, testing and debugging the code. Creating code is time-consuming and requires meticulous proof-reading and testing to fully serve its function, and for someone to reap the benefits and make a profit off of someone else's hard-work is preposterous. I believe that intellectual property should have more safety from people such as Steve Jobs, or else ideas can and will be plagiarized more and more as technology develops and we as a society rely more heavily upon it.

Lessig and the Non-rivalrous Nature of Intellectual Property

Lessig points out that the predominant difference between intellectually property and other tangible forms of property is that intellectual property is non-rivalrous. This characteristic is used to argue that intellectual property does not need to be protected in the same way as other kinds of property. If it possible for everyone to use then the only reason for excluding people from its use is greed. However, if we live in a world of competition then greed is a necessity to survive. A perfectly competitive world is a zero-sum game in which the competition’s loss is just as valuable as your own gain. Consider the farmer that discovers a way to grow a more desirable crop which yields a higher price in the market. The knowledge he acquires award him profits that are only attainable as long as his good remains desirable over other goods in the market i.e. other farmers can’t use his method of growing the more desirable crop. In this sense intellectual property is rivalrous. A similar argument can be drawn for other forms of intellectual property. In the case of music the concern is not necessarily financial profit but quality of life. Perhaps listening to a certain song will improve the quality of someone’s life more than if they listened to music they created on their own. Everything can be considered rivalrous if its value is described in a certain way. The question is where to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable value and how much value is necessary to promote creative progress.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property consists of "intellectual object" such as original music compositions, poems, and novels. (Intellectual Property in Cyberspace, pg.94). For example if I create a musical composition, that is my intellectual property and I have the right on that property to allow who can use my music pieces. In order to have the complete right on the song I must have the copyright on my work. This copyright will give me the exclusive right on my work which people cannot copyright my work without permission. Even though people cannot plagiarize my work, but they can enjoy the song that I create. They can play and sing the songs as an entertainment but not for the main profit making. Besides that, the term they cannot plagiarize does not mean that they cannot my song as the inspiration to develop it. So this can attract more people to create music pieces. This is allowed because we do not want kill the people interest on our intellectual object. Nowadays the development in the technology cannot totally protect the property. For example the digital technology of the internet enabled content to be freely distributed across the internet. For example the "You Tube" let us to download the movies or songs without has to pay anything. This will make the entertainment industry not develop. From that consequence, we can see that the economy will having problem if the law to the intellectual property not being strengthen. We also can try to change the norm as to strengthen the economy.

Intellectual Property

Through the readings and class discussions, a new topic has been introduced into the realm of computers and ethics. This topic is intellectual property, defined as not actual property but something that is created from the mind that can be copied very easily. Intellectual property requires much work from the creator but little from the consumers. Lessig sees intellectual property as means to creativity. Locke sees intellectual property as a means to self preservation, that in order to survive one must protect the created work. I believe that both of these men are correct. Intellectual Property is vital to the happiness and success of the United States of America. If there existed no new innovations, the country would be stuck in a society that refused to progress, even at a small speed. This would ruin the economy and demolish the base of what the United States was made on. However, although it is a means of creativity, it also must be protected. I agree with Locke in his point, that it is necessary to preserve and protect intellectual property. Otherwise, there would not be any incentive to create and invent. As more people want to use the intellectual property, the creator should be reimbursed for their work. However, with the creation of cyberspace, a whole new world of shared information or "the commons" exists. Although the internet has become a gigantic part of the American society, intellectual property creators must still be protected. What they write should still be their own, and they should be able to charge if they wish. Other ways of money making on the internet is advertising but if not enough people visit a certain page, no one will want to advertise. The internet raises some questions into the intellectual property: Should a creator post on the internet if they do not want their ideas to be copied? Or should they want to benefit the whole of society by solving a problem or writing something and sharing so others can benefit as well?

Employee monitoring in Baase and ‘Modern Times’

Baase pointed out that as our technology improves the ways in which employees are monitored are becoming more sophisticated. We’ve moved far beyond punch clocks to the effect of being able to monitor a worker’s per second output. The intended effect of this is to make production more efficient but some perceive a workplace with decreased freedom. Charlie Chaplin’s movie explored the idea of where technology could take us. Most of these monitoring technologies create access to information that was previously unavailable. Learning to deal with this new information is a task in and of itself but time will surely work any new technology into the norm. It’s important to note that a lot of the humor in ‘Modern Times’ is comes from not understanding the new technology. If your boss pops up on your desk and yells at you for not working, it would only be surprising if you didn’t know it could happen. If you did work in an environment with that capability you would develop some way to cope with it or the management might come to accept the reality that every now and then workers nap at their desks. One way or the other the workplace is only improved with the greater access to information once the environment has matured to the novel idea. Monitoring technology should be used responsibly but the question is at what point would they be abused and not be corrected by public interference. With greater technology there seems to also be greater scrutiny from the public.

Long-Distance Fast-Food

A few weeks ago in class we discussed a new innovation McDonald's had incorporated into some of their restaurants across the United States: a call center for their drive-throughs. I do agree that this will improve efficiency, but it is detrimental to the employment market. Let's say that this calling station uses 25 people to take orders at 100 drive-up windows; this eliminates 75 jobs that people looking for work could use to create an income. This is very inconsiderate given the fact that so many people in our country are impoverished and unemployed. What more is disturbing is the way the employees of the calling center are treated during their hours of work. Although they may come to work dressed however they please, the way these employees are monitored during the day seems superfluous and demeaning. Besides the clock in the break-room that tell the workers how long they've been off-duty and the random pop-up for the worker to click within 1.75 seconds, what frustrates me most is how the manager sits at his desk reading statistics on every worker. If I was running McDonald's I would cut this guy's salary, because he don't do anything all day. He states that "when fractions of a second count, the environment needs to be controlled," but do fractions of a second actually count? When you make billions of dollars a year, what does 75 more salaries and a few minutes a day cost you? It is this mantra that makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

Three main features of economic democracy is workers self management, markets, and democratic control of investment. In the economic democracy each productive enterprise is controlled democratically by its worker under the mean of worker self management. Wage labor is applied in the capitalism which all extra money will go to the manager or the owner of the company. While in the economic democracy all the profit is shared by all the component of the company. Another feature of economic democracy is market; market will interact with one another and with consumers in an environment largely free of government price of controls. As what Professor Perry said, the market the people running the company know what people want, if there is no market, we cannot determine what people want. Market is also very important especially in the sophisticated country for example United States and Malaysia, while the Soviet Union and Cuba does not have market. The last feature is social control of investment, the investment in the economic democracy is controlled by the workers, while in the capitalism is controlled by the M-C-M'. In my opinion the economic democracy is much better than the capitalism because the workers also play the role in the company profit, the market and the company investment. In the economic democracy, the capitalist cannot does not have freedom in their own company and at the same time this will reduce the hypermobility. This new kind of economic gives the chance to the worker to involve in the management.

ADVANCE IN TECHNOLOGY

Most of the worker that has computers and other office technology believes that advances in technology have changed their life. The technology actually not really changed their life but, technology is designed to support them. Technology can cut the labor costs and speed up the processing information. At the same time technology will make fewer people can do more work for less money. When fewer people are needed to complete the work this caused the unemployment and part of the community which is unemployed will live their life in hard way. In my opinion, technology is one of the powers that can control market and people. But still the use of technology should be considered, for example in the video clip Charlie Chaplin – Modern Times we can see that through the applications of technology, the manager control the worker which make the worker have no enjoyment while working. Besides that, this control gives bad impact to the worker psychology as they have to do the work repeating continuously. This cause the worker is fired and unemployed. In other means, the technology makes the communication easier, save up time, and the work has more quality. The advances in technology does not changed people life but how people manipulate the technology does changed people life. So, we cannot let the technology control our life, but do control the technology in a good way to empower the market. There is still the use of technology that we can explore and applied which can improve the market.

If given a choice does that mean freedom?

In a handout in class, it discussed the notion that just because someone is given a choice, that does not mean they are necessarily free. In the case of the fast food worker, although they choose to work there, it is an area of "forced choosing" not of "free choosing." However, this argument is based on the concept that each decision and the choices included in it are independent from one another. This is not the case. Life is full of decisions, paths, and options. As each decision is made other possible options are closed and other paths are open. Each decision is not independent of one another. For example, pertaining to the fast food worker, the question needs to be asked: why are they in this position in the first place? Did they not succeed in school? Did they go to jail for petty theft or drugs? If they did not succeed in school was it because of lack of effort, a poor situation, or a lack of resources? Did they go to jail because they could not afford food or to get money for illicit drugs? A person does not merely end up at a decision. The decisions and consequences that are a result shape a person's life, not just one "forced choice" to enter the fast food industry. To say that every person deserves to have the same opportunities, when the effort and ambition is not present would result in a loss of productivity, money, and of innovation in a country.

Is the worker free?

In our discussion in class, the idea of whether the worker is free was brought up. According to several of the readings, including Bravermen, the notion that workers are free is not the case. Braverman believes that the workers are not free. Rather, they are manipulated by management to create money. Management is built on the notion that workers are dispensable, and they can do what they wish with workers without fear. There is no freedom as growth, because the workers are not given any opportunity to grow. However, although division of labor in detail is not the best for the worker, it does not completely ruin the worker. The workers are still capable of living lives and are getting paid. A person's soul is not mortally destroyed by doing the same job over and over. Although it might not exactly be an American Dream, it is a job and it does need to be done. Americans are becoming so complacent. Most Americans believe that they are too good for factory or assembly line work. Thus, companies outsource labor because other countries are willing to do the jobs and work hard for the money. American factor and assembly line workers unionize and do not desire to do the work. As a result, the production is less for a greater amount of money. If American workers would buckle down and do the jobs that are available for the price presented, companies would not feel the need to get rid of labor to other countries.

Freedom and Work

Last week in class we discussed the freedom of employment choices. One of the circumstances presented by Mr. Perry was if the person was presented with being an MTV personality or a fast-food cashier, or something along those lines: a more reasonable alternative versus a less reasonable one. If the person chose the fast-food job, they would have made a fully free choice, as they declined a more acceptable alternative. However, what if the person chose the more acceptable occupation? Would this be considered a free choice, or were they forced into choosing something better because the other alternative was less acceptable? These questions also bring up an even more debatable question: What is an acceptable choice? Where does one draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Depending on the person's background, opinions and morals, the line could vary. For example, here at Vanderbilt, I'm sure 99% of us would consider even a management position at Burger King unacceptable. But for a person who has grown up impoverished and not as fortunate, that would be a very acceptable position, maybe even an aspiration. Although this line would seem unique to each person, I believe that there is one underlying rule for an acceptable job: there needs to be respect between the employer and the employee. Any job that does not respect the privacy and freedom of its employees is unethical. This respect includes minimal monitoring and acceptable wages, two things that are not prevalent in a lot of jobs today, but are required for an alternative to be a choice when a worker seeks employment.

Poor Wages Enslave the Working Class

In a world where jobs are more limited than people who can work them there is much room for exploitation. Employers can offer a wage for work that does not reflect the value of the work provided. However, the only alternative for the people who work this job is to not have any source of income at all. If they refuse to work jobs which do not pay adequate wages, they must find other means of surviving. What does this alternative mean? The only ways to survive without an income in seem to be surviving off others, stealing, or living in something near a state of nature. The first requires charity which one could never be certain of; the second is immoral and illegal; and the third portrays an absurd life of living in the woods but in reality is being homeless on the streets. Employers seem to be indifferent to this alternative for the workers they do not provide jobs for. The question is whether it is the employers’ responsibility to pay a fair wage. The people they offer jobs to live a better life than those who still get left with no job; that comparison is true. There will always be some people living in that harsh alternative to a waged job; the numbers and reasons for that are debatable. If life with a poorly paying job is better than one with no job at all doesn’t an employer offering that option of a bad job increase a workers freedom? The status quo of that worker is the alternative we originally discussed; the offer of a bad job is actually an option to increase their quality of life. Consider the individual worker’s choice. He has no job and can’t find any job but the one that pays poorly; he’ll take the job if he wants to have that little income. What if the government barred in from working that job because they didn’t pay him enough? He wouldn’t have that small income and the government is limiting his freedom to get it. The counter argument to this is that employers need workers to make money themselves and with government regulations part of employers’ profits would essentially be transferred to the waged workers. BUT, this is taking away the employers’ option of paying lower wages. Does government intervention really increase freedom? Perhaps, those who would prefer government intervention value other things more than freedom.

Intellectual Property

I listened to the NPR clip from the show Talk of the Nation about whether copying music from a legally bought CD to your computer and then sharing it online is illegal. The recording industry sued a man because he allegedly was sharing 2000+ songs online, but there was also confusion over whether it was also illegal to simply rip the music to your hard drive, without the intent to share it online. This may have been partially due to outdated copyright laws that have not kept up with technology and misquotes from the legal department of the RIAA. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) says that while ripping CDs to your hard drive is illegal, it is not objected to. They have never prosecuted anyone for doing this. However, the sharing of these files online is illegal and prosecuted. Their reasoning must be that, while copying music onto your PC and maybe making some backup copies for yourself is technically illegal, it does not cause the industry to lose any money as long as you do not distribute the music. But what makes music bought on CDs different from music bought on iTunes or other sites? If transferring music from your CD to your PC is illegal, then what about transferring music from iTunes to your iPod or a CD? Would that be legal? And in what sense do you own the music? For example, if you connect an iPod to a computer that it is not normally connected to, it will delete all music on the iPod that is not present on the computer. Shouldn’t you be able to do what you like with your property? For example, Apple is facing a lawsuit stating that by allowing music bought on iTunes to be only played on iPods it is breaking federal anti-trust laws. Who really owns your music?

Response to ‘The Story of Stuff’: The Nation of Consumers

Annie Leonard in her documentary called the US a Nation of Consumers pointing. She points out that our great production rate fueled a culture of consumption where buying the product has become just as important as using it (maybe even more important). She points out that the government often asks the people to continue to shop in times of trouble because we are afraid of our economy failing if we do not. This leads to wasteful usage of everything we produce- it’s as if we consume in order to justify our production. This consumer driven mentality in fact has lead us to a crisis in consumer debt. Americans have, as directed, made consumption part of their culture. This plan actually backfired because instead of just consuming at a constant rate relative to the rate of production, first time Americans consume more than they produce.
While consumerism adversely affects strangers all over the world and the world itself, it was justified (for some) by the fact that it was the driving force of the American economy. Now it cannot even be justified in that way as consumerism is forcing a recession on the economy by way of consumer debt. Perhaps the government should ask something better of their people: to produce as best they can. In order to adjust to the reality of a dying planet and failing economy the American people need to adjust their culture to be more efficient by producing better goods and consuming more responsibly. Leonard also makes a point that although we have a ‘higher standard of living’ then we did in the past we are not as happy. Americans need to reevaluate their culture and lifestyle and change.

(Response to Class Related Stuff: 293 words)

Capitalists not so bad?

Parenti points out that people with money are best in position to make more money and exploit the poor in the process. I agree that it is strange that labor does not correlate with profit but Parenti oversimplifies this. First, the capitalist fronting the money is acting as an organizer. He finds all the capital necessary for his venture and sets up a system of producing money. Once the system is set up the capitalist’s work is complete and he is in position to reap the fruits of his employees’ labor. The fact remains though that without the capitalists there would not have been any system and therefore no one would benefit, and anyone employed by the capitalist would in fact not have a job. The other point Parenti neglects is the risk capitalist take in their investment. Sometimes great profits can come of business ventures but often they end up as failed projects and a lot of wasted money. The laborers the capitalists hire would lose their jobs if the capitalist’s venture fails but they would have at least earned money for their efforts. The capitalist faces losing everything and it is a true gamble.
From the perspective of the working class it would profit them more if they themselves organized the system but then they would have the option of dropping their labor job and then becoming a capitalist (which I think would surely happen). It is true however that in terms of risk the capitalists’ risk is much lower however because he has money to begin with.

Breast Cancer Talk

In class on Thursday, September 18th, we listened to a radio clip where a woman discussed the marketability of Breast Cancer. While listening to her talk about how companies use "pink" to promote their products and raise profits, I was both amazed and appalled by the strategies employed by these corporations. I was at first almost impressed by the "win-win" situation presented to anyone marketing a product: by supporting breast cancer and donating a percentage of profits to research, the producer can increase their revenue almost instantly. However, as she stated how companies celebrate the marketable breast cancer while hiding the "incurable" domestic violence, my attitude began to turn sour. The relentlessness of capitalism reared its ugly head when the woman informed us all that chemotherapy is more "profitable" than preventing breast cancer. Although health care firms profit from chemo, it is appalling to know that a cure, whether already found or close to being discovered, has to be hidden from society to keep the consumers (in this case, dying patients) producing profits and money flowing in. The victim in all of this, however, is all "incurable" problems; in this radio clip the focus was domestic violence, but there are plenty of things that could be supported and possibly solved by the big corporations which, apparently, just aren't marketable. The issues of poverty, domestic violence, hunger, and other prevalent problems in society today are ignored by people who have the funds to help fix them. Overall, I was shocked by how ruthless capitalism can and has become in the United States, and am very curious what other kinds of resources are being held from the public eye.

Freedom

Everyone hoping that they have freedom in their life. Freedom can be defined in lot of different way, for example freedom from colonization and freedom to do anything in their life. As Professor Perry idea, freedom from is a negative freedom to is a positive freedom. This showed that much idea can define freedom. Freedom also has almost the same meaning as right. A right is something which attaches to a person, and which cannot be taken away: if I have a right to life, then no one else is allowed to take away my right. (Hull, Gordon Hull). The connection between freedom and right is they have the right to do anything so they free to do it. Hull mentioned that right describes the relation between human. For example I want the freedom to do crime, do I have the right to do so? As the right has the relation between human so I must consider the right of others. I cannot do anything that can affect others life. For me this is the good example idea of freedom. As long as the freedom does not cross the ethics it is a good freedom. Ethic is about doing good things and since the best kind of philosophical system. It follows the best kind of foundation. Best Kind of foundation is something which is a good thing for all people at all times. (Hull, Gordon Hull). This foundation can give happiness consequence for everyone. As the conclusion I want to say that a good freedom is freedom that will take care of the human relationship and give happiness to all.

capitalism

Capitalism is the economic system operated for profit. It is owned by private persons, and operated for profit. People have their own idea about the capitalism. For example, the C-M-C and M-C-M formulae can symbolize the concept of capitalism. C-M-C formula means that the commodity changed to money to buy other commodity. This kind of formula is used for the use value or the value that for the life satisfied which everyone in this world need it. The employee who always been condemned by the capitalist through the mean of wages will know how hard life in the capitalist world. They have to work hard to survive in this world as the help provided by the government through the taxes paid by the more fortunate society cannot totally help them to have complete basic needs to live their life. There is a part of society which does not realize how the poor live their life. In Malaysia, we have variety of taxes which can support the life of the poor, for example government does support a part of hospital fee, education fee, and also really helping the unfortunate family. Back to the capitalism, the M-C-M formula symbolize the capitalism system which from the money the commodity is buy, for example the labor work or stuff then the commodity is used or sell to get the money or profit. The capitalist pay the low wages to the labor as to get more profit by selling the product with low prices. Though this way of capitalism is very cruel, but for the capitalist they have to do as want to compete among them and continually survive in the capitalism bubble. There is connection between the capitalism and the imperialism. "Imperialism is older than capitalism". (Parenti, Micheal 1996, pg. 3). Imperialism describes an action and attitude. It is commonly understood in relation to Empire building. Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five century, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous people and obliterating entire civilization. Empires are called "commonwealth", and colonies become "territories" or "dominions". Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense", "national security" and maintaining "stability in one or another region. (Parenti, Micheal 1995).

Hospers

In class a week ago, we discussed Hopsers are his concepts on libertarian freedom. Hopsers believes that a man should be concerned with himself and only himself and does not have the rights of anyone else. He believes that each man can act anyway he so chooses unless it infringes on the life of other human beings. Although each person is responsible for his own actions and the results brought around by those decisions, to believe that each person should only be concerned with himself would create a society of narcissists. Although our mixed economy does spur people toward narcissism, the concept of ignoring society and other people all together is a poor one. Hospers also claims that libertarians believe the government should only be the protector of the citizens and only protect against the aggression by other individuals. This is a novelty concept, although people would like the government out of their business and life, if the government did not do so, the securities and privacies cherished would not exist. The government is necessary to protect citizens from themselves by placing penalties on things that are considered "wrong" to do. Many people do not understand the amount of work the government does to prevent future problems and protect its citizens. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are a large part of our protection. In addition, the National Guard and local police and fire stations protect on the local level. If the government was only out to protect when a problem arose instead of prevention that occurs now, the society would be worse off.

Capitilism

In class on Tuesday, September 16, we talked about capitalism. The views of Marx were mentioned. Marx believes that capitalism preys on the society and people as a whole to flourish. In addition, Marx expresses that capitalism is out of control of humans even though they created it. Although correct in some sense, I believe this is a complete over exaggeration. Capitalism works in our country. Our economy has flourished like no other economy in the past two hundred years. Communist societies, while good in theory, are based on the assumption that humans are underlying good. This is not the case. A young child never has to be taught to do something wrong or say no. Doing wrong is human nature. Thus, basing a society off the concept that people are fundamentally good and are going to share is starting on a worthless notion. People want to succeed. Competition is imbedded in each person, some in varying degrees. Competition produces progress, and progress is what America has thrived on. Any other type of society would not have yielded the exponential results obtained by the United States. America is a mixed market, with capitalism while government regulation still exists, which allows a good bit of competition without the fear of monopoly. However, Marx and other critics of capitalism state that it is endless and infinite. This is true. Capitalism works in such a way that there is never a break in the cycle. There is no going back without major economic consequences after a capitalistic society begins.

Corn article

While I was reading Pollan's article on corn, I found myself thinking about how the cows felt in their lifetime, and whether their treatment could be considered ethical. Although ethics is how people ought to treat other people, I believe that animals should have some ethical rights too. I'm not a vegan or an animal activist or anything like that; I like a burger just as much as the next guy, but I don't think the animals should have to wallow around in their own poop and be forced to eat when they do not want to eat. Pollan mentions this as he observes his steer "Number 534". He noticed that the steer looked full, his eyes were bloodshot (probably from conjunctivitis because of the fecal particles in the air), and overall not a happy being. The unnatural way the cows get fed while they are being fattened is unethical, especially the whole cannibalism thing. Rather unfortunately for the cows, however, this sacrifice of the animals' ethics is the trade off for the efficiency required in modern industry. The M-C-M' formula discussed today in class, which capitalism is essentially based off of, involves the essential variable of speed. The faster the cows are fattened, the faster they can be slaughtered, packaged sold and consumed by the consumers fulfilling the result of M'. And although McDonald's or Boar's Head doesn't care about the ethics of animals so much as profit, it's interesting to notice in the study of ethics that the rights of beings besides humans are usually tossed aside to make easier profits.