The Logic of Collective Action

     The individual member of the typical large organization is in a position analogous to that of the firm in a perfectly competitive market, or the taxpayer in the state: his own efforts will not have a noticeable effect on the situation of his organization, and he can enjoy any improvements brought about by others whether or not he has worked in support of his organization.

     A member of large organization or group does not have to do a lot of work within the organization, the truth is that he may not have to do any work at all, the fact that he belongs to a group entitles him to enjoy the improvements that others achieve for the organization.   A perfect example would be a free public service offered by the government, we can all benefit from it, the government cannot discriminate, it cannot exclude a citizen who does not pay taxes.

Roe v. Wade

     Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.

     Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade (D).

     A three-judge District Court panel tried the cases together and held that Roe and Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, and that declaratory relief was warranted. The court also ruled however that injunctive relief was not warranted and that the Does’ complaint was not justiciable.

     Roe and Hallford won their lawsuits at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for over broadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The Does lost, however, because the district court ruled that injunctive relief against enforcement of the laws was not warranted.

     The Does appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and Wade cross-appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Roe and Hallford.

     The Roe v. Wade decision changed the lives of women forever, it allowed women to be in control of their bodies, and it gave women the right to make a decision without having to break the law. Women would not have to seek dangerous practices to terminate a pregnancy.  Not every woman agrees with the decision, some of us who are pro-life, we believe that the courts made the incorrect decision. 

     I chose this topic because I believe that without Roe V. Wade, women’s rights would be stagnant, we would have not been able to enjoy the freedom we have and would not be able to exercise our rights.  Roe v. Wade’s decision opened up new doors to women rights and for it, I’m really grateful.   

John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

     “Whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own”.

     President Kennedy was very simple and clear in his inaugural speech, he asked to be held accountable for his decisions just like the country would expect from its citizens.  President Kennedy believed that we all had the power to change the world for the better.

     President Kennedy’s speech is very clear, the future of the country did not only rely on the way he would lead this nation, the progress of a nation also relied on the willingness of citizens of a nation to do their fair share, he wanted each and every one of us to be socially responsible, we were asked to do “God’s work” here on earth.

Gerrymandering

    “Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats.  Rather, it’s to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a large number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably.  Considering this dynamic, John Sides of the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog has argued convincingly that gerrymandering is not   what’s behind the rising polarization in Congress”.

     Gerrymandering is really grouping the supporters of the opposing parties in a small number of districts so that you give them safe wins.  The trick is to make sure that these districts are densely populated with the opposing party’s supporters to the point that the remaining districts are comfortable wins for your party.  You essentially isolate the opposition.   

Citizenship and Social Class

“Citizenship, even in its earliest forms, was a principle of equality, and that during this period, it was a developing institution. Starting at the point where all men were free, and in theory capable of enjoying rights, it grew by enriching the body of rights which they were capable of enjoying.  But these rights did not conflict with the inequalities of capitalist society; they were, on the contrary, necessary to the maintenance of that particular form of inequality”.

We all have the basic civil rights, we are able to enjoy these rights which in no way compete with a capitalist society, for example a poor and a rich citizen share the same rights, they should both be able to exercise their rights and buy a piece of land, even though both can exercise the right to purchase property only one will be able to complete the purchase, the rich citizen.    Having the same rights does not mean we all share the same social status.

A Lecture on the Anti-Slavery Movement

     "If the anti-slavery movement shall fail now, it will not be from outward opposition, but from inward decay. Its auxiliaries are everywhere. Scholars, authors, orators, poets, and statesmen, give it their aid" (Douglas 4).  

     In 1855 Frederick Douglas delivers this lecture to the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society.  It focuses on the organizations that make up the anti-slavery movement.  The four groups are the Garrisonians, the Anti-Garrisonians, the Free Soil Party, and the Liberty Party.  He critiques the way these groups approach their pursuit of the end of slavery.  He does so in order to examine how the Anti-Slavery movement can continue to grow.

     The reason Douglas takes the time to critique these organizations is because he wants to keep them from dying out.  Even if this were to happen, he believes that the Anti-Slavery movement has become so strong that it will continue to exist.  He does not fear that the movement will be stopped by opposing forces but that it can only end if it decays from within (Douglas 4).  This is why he takes the time to point out the errors in the current branches of the Anti-Slavery movement.  He believes that if these organizations take the wrong path and do not seek to abolish slavery for all men, then the movement will suffer.  He however believes that if those who support the movement hold on to the right principles, then the movement will definitely succeed (Douglas 4).

Douglas, Frederick "A Lecture on the Anti-Slavery Movement" The Americans (1855) Web.  27 March, 2015.

The Seventh of March Speech

   “Now, Sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists a wide difference of opinion between the northern portion of this country and the southern. It is said on the one side, that, although not the subject of any injunction or direct prohibition in the New Testament, slavery is a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; and that is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts by which a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its will; and that, in its nature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have taken place, it is not according to the meek spirit of the Gospel. It is not "kindly affectioned"; it does not "seek another's, and not its own"; it does not "let the oppressed go free".

     The Seventh of March Speech is a controversial speech about preserving the union, it touched on the issue of slavery.   Webster argues that the issue of slavery was already addressed, he believed that if slavery already existed, it could not be banned and it could not be take root in the new states.

     The North and the South had clear ideas of what each one believed, Webster was trying to preserve the Union by setting aside the issue of slavery.  Webster saw no reason for the North and South to separate, he was appalled by the idea of the secession.  We often feel so right about what we believe, we fight so hard for that goal, that “truth”, that we forget the effect it has on others, we only see what we think is right and forget that what others believe it might be equally important. The North and the South are dependent on each other economically and everything that could be lost because of secession outweighs the benefits of separation.