William Graham Sumner: What Social Classes Owe to Each Other

In this reading, Sumner makes the argument that government programs to help the poor are abused and that rich people should be able to keep their wealth. To a certain extent, I see where he's coming from. When I see how much money gets taken out of my paychecks for taxes, it makes me sick (and I am definitely not considered rich), but, this guy has absolutely no sympathy. 

I know that some people do take advantage of the systems set in place in the United States now, and I'm sure it happened then too. However, there are some legitimate reasons why some people live below the poverty line. I try to exercise as much sympathy as possible in this situations and not judge people. Sumner, on the other hand, is completely insensitive. He writes,  "Labor organizations are formed, not to employ combined effort for a common object, but to indulge in declamation and denunciation and especially to furnish an easy living to some officers who do not want to work." 

Over the summer I worked at a drugstore that sold groceries. The area where I live doesn't have a very high level of income in some areas. I'm lucky enough to have a family that has always been able to live comfortably, but I know that some people that live on the other side of town aren't so lucky. A lot of people that came into my work used food stamps to pay for their purchases. Most seemed to actually need food stamps for their purchases. These customers seemed embarrassed of  their situations, and some even explained their situations (lay offs, difficulty finding new jobs, etc). To me, these people hardly seemed to not want to work, most just couldn't find a good job that was close enough to our village to be financially worth it gas wise. And while there were some people that paid for extra frivolous things with money or a credit card and then bought food with food stamps, they were definitely in the minority. 

Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States

I found this reading particularly interesting because I'm also taking Introduction to Women's Studies this semester. As discussed in class, like Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony first complimented and praised the progress that the United States has made so far. The Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States was written 24 years after Douglass gave his speech, "What to the Slave is the Forth of July?" The writing techniques, however are very similar. They give praise and compliments first and then continue on to make passionate and convincing arguments for their cause (abolition of slavery and women's rights, respectively). 

A point that Stanton and Anthony use a great deal is that "sex is a crime" in the United States. The women point out that the word "male" is added into all State constitutions. This denied women the right to vote. This also means that women are denied a jury of their peers. Women have had to answer to juries made up entirely of men. Men, especially in those days,  just simply do not understand women's issues such as rape, domestic abuse and adultery. There was no other woman's voice to aid a fellow woman in defense. 

As a feminist, the unfairness of the way that women were treated not only makes me angry, but sick as well. I think that modern United States culture has gotten lazy when it comes to women's rights. A women is still making $0.75 for every $1.00 that a man makes for the same job. A women's right to choose whether or not she can terminate a pregnancy in her own body is in jeopardy. In conclusion, I think that it's important for the people of the United States to remember the hard work and dedication that people like Douglass, Stanton and Anthony had for their respective causes. While we may have made a lot of progress, we have a long way to go.  

Frederick Douglass Reading

In the Frederick Douglass reading, What to the Slave is the Forth of July?, Douglass makes a compelling and passionate speech about the hardships, unfairness and unjustness of slavery. He starts his speech off by praising the bravery, determination and intelligence of the founding fathers. This is a particularly effective tool to use, considering the fact that his audience was probably made primarily of white people who had their freedom and took it for granted. 

Douglass then goes on to say that, "the eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is you, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence." This lets the audience know that he understands the difficulties ahead for those who believe in abolitionist causes, but he believes that the United States is new enough in its existence as a nation to be able to make a positive change in such a hot button and important issue as slavery. 

Overall, I really believe that the speech is powerful and moving. If I had been there when it was delivered, I think that I would have been inspired. Just reading it was inspiring. I just find it extremely interesting that Fredrick Douglass, a man who was born into slavery and later escaped, to speak at a Forth of July celebration for the President of the United States and other important officials. Did they not see the hypocrisy in asking a man who spent the beginning of his life legally treated like an object to speak about freedom and liberty? Nevertheless, I think that the speech was eloquent and well written. 

Mill Reading

I found the activity that we did at the beginning of yesterday's class to be a very interesting tie in, especially considering the political climate of Ithaca. So many people at IC claim to be "hardcore" liberals, but I'm curious to see how many people could actually define liberalism. Despite the fact that I'm interested in politics and working on making it my second major, I'm not entirely sure that I could completely and thoroughly define it either. 

Both John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes examined and wrote about how much control citizens were willing to give up to their governments or sovereigns. Both focused on the relationship between the ruler and those being ruled, but came up with different ideas about how that relationship should be. 

Hobbes wrote about an absolute monarchy in which the ruler, or sovereign, would have supreme power. The people basically give up all power and rights when they agree to the terms in the covenant. They have no power to overthrow, disagree with or challenge the ruler. The sovereign is all powerful with no system of checks and balances. 

Mill, however, believes that the only time individuals or society as a whole can interfere with individual liberty is for self protection (www.bartelby.com)  He believes in a more democratic approach to government. 

Liberty, or the quality or state of being free, is a core idea of liberalism, according to in class discussion on September 3rd. Therefore, Mill's core political beliefs according to On Liberty, share a liberalistic view of government, whereas Hobbes promotes a very oppressive and totalitarian government. The 2 different writers develop completely different political ideologies based on the same question.