The Logic of Collective Action

The combination of individual interest and common interests in an organization suggests an analogy with a competitive market.

The logic of collective action has come under attack in recent decades.  “Big government” is taboo in politics, since the days of President Bill Clinton.  As recently demonstrated in Wisconsin, the power of collective bargaining has been greatly diminished with corporate interest realizing more influence than ever; according to the Supreme Court, corporations are people who have freedom of speech – translated into unlimited dollars.  The net result is that the 1% benefits on the backs of the disenfranchised.  A couple of days ago, President Obama was in Flint, Michigan in a continuing effort to address the water crisis.  In his remarks he reminded us that there are some things that we cannot do alone, no matter how wealthy or intelligent we may be.  There are some things we must do collectively, thru government. 

I chose this sentence because it speaks to current events, which I find most instructive.

Loving v Virgina

Kinney, K-I-N-N-E-Y and then in 1924, in the period of great history in the United States, the historical period we're all familiar with, a period when the west was in arms over the yellow peril and western states were thinking about these laws or some (Inaudible), a period when the immigration laws were being passed to the United States because the north was worried about the great influx of Italian immigrants and Irish immigrants, a period when the Klan rode openly in the south and that's when they talked about bastardy of races, and miscegenation and amalgamation and race suicide became the watch word, and John Powell, a man we singled out in our brief, a noted pianist of his day, started taking up the Darwin Theory and perverting it through the theory of eugenics, the theory that applied to animals, to pigs, and hogs, and cattle.

Loving v Virginia was a case argued before the Supreme Court 1967 and addressed the right of a white man to marry a black woman. The state argued they have the right to regulate marriage.  The plaintiff argued that the law was discriminatory and akin to ‘slave’ legislation.  The court found that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination."

I am ashamed and angered when I consider how racist my country has been and continues to be.  I chose the above paragraph because it speaks to intolerance related to Native American, Italians, Irish, and of course Blacks.  It is too painful for me to focus only on the unfortunate way this country has treated my ancestors.  It is more palatable to contemplate how ignorantly the establishment treated a number of groups, in addition to blacks.  Listening the arguments made before the Supreme Court was thought provoking and brings about a sense of amazement how much progress has been made since 1967.

Gonzales v. Raich

“So now what you're saying is, in a Commerce Clause case, what we're supposed to do is to start to look at the federal scheme and the state scheme and see, comparing the federal scheme and the state scheme, whether, given the state scheme, the federal scheme is really necessary to include this.” (Stephen G. Breyer)

This Supreme Court Argument was concerned with rather the commerciality of marijuana is economic or non-economic.  The government argues that there needs to be federal oversight of medicinal marijuana in order to prevent the interstate interchanging of marijuana, a schedule 1 substance, in presumed inability of a State, in this case California, inability to regulate such substance.

I chose the above paragraph because I believe it presents an articulate example of how to appropriately treat the powers of the state versus the State.  In many instances, there is recognition that each state has a right and responsibility to regulate its citizens, with exceptions given to activities and/or events that will affect the State-at-large.  I strongly believe that it is important that each state maintains it autonomy, where possible, and not defer to the State, except in rare instances that it becomes necessary.     

Buckley v. Valeo

The issue is whether Congress under the First Amendment made by law, limit the ability of challengers to communicate with the very same constituents without similarly limiting itself.

Of course, public officials need to communicate with voters, but so do challengers and if private contributions to challengers for use in mailing are to be limited, since they may corrupt or give the wealthy an unequal voice, then contributions to incumbents for the same purpose should also be limited.  Ralph K. Winter, Jr.

This was an oral argument made before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975.  At question was financing of political campaigns and how much individuals and political action groups can lawfully contribute.

I chose the above paragraph because, at the onset, speaks to the heart of the matter.  Speech and communication are key components in a candidate’s ability to reach his potential constituents.  In he age of mass media, communication is easily translated into dollars.  As anything else in our capitalistic economy, communication becomes subject to the forces of the market, which is counter to democracy.  Therefore, each person must be guaranteed the same access  and ability to communicate to said constituency.

Civil Disobedience Part 1 of 3

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

The piece was based on the works of Henry David Thoreau.  The bases of the article was that we, as citizens, have a responsibility beyond a simple vote in elections.  We are called to stand against injustice perpetrated by our government, as in slavery or the Mexican-American war.  The writer suggests that many citizens are content to relinquish their moral responsibility to humanity and allow elected parties and government official to exercise inappropriate and unjust authority over those of lesser power.  The writer suggest it better to have no government than to turn over one’s conscience because of apathy.

I chose this paragraph because I agree that in order to achieve a desired government, one must first  know what kind of government he wants.  Our current government is not perfect.  It is always desired for better.  How is better achieved?  Most directly by voting, most practically in everyday actions.  Political action works, as demonstrated in the current presidential election politics.  Citizens have a voice that resonates.  The burning question becomes what issues the resonating voices advocate?

BONUS:   

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

This partial paragraph really resonated with me.  It at once reminded me of the Supreme Court’s ruling that ‘corporations are people’ and how many of us blindly accept what is done on our behalf by ‘our’ government.  I think many people are unclear on what they want and/or expect from our elected classes; if we don’t know what it is that we want how do we get it, or know if we have it already?

Master Class

Debaucheries of any kind Calhoun was never accused of. There is no record that he ever read or tried to write poetry, although there is a traditional gibe to the effect that he once began a poem with "Whereas," and stopped. Once in his life he read a novel—this at the request of a lady who asked for his judgment on it. A friend, Mary Bates, observed that she "never heard him utter a jest," and Daniel Webster in his eulogy said he had never known a man "who wasted less of life in what is called recreation, or employed less of it in any pursuits not immediately connected with the discharge of his duty." Duty is the word, for duty was the demonic force in Calhoun. "I hold the duties of life to be greater than life itself," he once wrote. "... I regard this life very much as a struggle against evil, and that to him who acts on proper principle, the reward is in the struggle more than in victory itself, although that greatly enhances it." In adult life to relax and play are in a certain sense to return to the unrestrained spirits of childhood. There is reason to believe that Calhoun was one of those people who have had no childhood to return to. This, perhaps, was what Harriet Martineau sensed when she said that he seemed never to have been born. His political lieutenant, James H. Hammond, remarked after his death: "Mr. Calhoun had no youth, to our knowledge. He sprang into the arena like Minerva from the head of Jove, fully grown and clothed in armor: a man every inch himself, and able to contend with any other man."

John C. Calhoun was a man of high ideals who compromised his beliefs in service to comfort to his ‘master class’.  Mr. Calhoun believed in nationalism and aspired to become a leader in that regard, but cleverly amended his approach, in favor of sectionalism, to suit his political and financial aims.  As the north of the country gained in prominence and power, the south began to feel abused and in threat of their way of life.  It is proposed that the original rift between north and south was more about this perceived imbalance in power more than any disagreement directly related to slavery.  Calhoun professed belief that there was need of a ‘master class’ in order to effectuate success in the country.  There had to be laborers, and as such masters.  Mr. Calhoun did not believe the country could be successful without such a system.

I chose the above paragraph for the sentence "... I regard this life very much as a struggle against evil, and that to him who acts on proper principle, the reward is in the struggle more than in victory itself, although that greatly enhances it."  The sentiments of this statement resonates with me on a very deep level.  I believe in one’s life work, the reward for a good job is more work.  In reading the piece, I was intrigued with how many people described Mr. Calhoun as being so serious about his pursuits dedicated to his cause.  Regarding a 'master class', I believe it is still in effect today- we call it the 1%.

Room for Debate

In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour.” In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision.

The article argues for getting rid of life terms for Justices of the Supreme Court.  The writer uses the example of Obamacare as a decision, made by the Supreme Court, that will be obsolete in the not-to-distant future.  According to the writer, for many reasons, including: life expectancy, outlasting of lucidity, and an antiquated system of choosing justices, there is a need to seriously consider how we go about selecting who serve on the high court and how long their tenure.  The writer acknowledges the need to maintain independence on the court but believes there is a better way of doing things.

I chose the paragraph, initiating this post, because I strongly agree with the statement “No one person should wield so much power” holds true not just for Justices of the Supreme Court, but for judges overall.  I have had occasion to witness the proceedings in a court room and was left with remembering 1 Corinthians 2:15 which states “But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man”.  I believe no person should have the right to sit in judgement on another person.  Having said that, in consideration that this is our system of government and there needs to be laws to govern behaviors, I accept the role of judges in our society and have no problem with Justices of the Supreme Court within the current system.  There will be times when a justice may outlive their usefulness, but history shows that most will voluntarily leave the court.  All things considered, I believe our system is the best.