5/3/11
4/30/11
Quote of the Day
Egyptian Revolution - Locke Was Right!
It’s been stated that a revolution requires a complete dramatic chance in ideas or practice through the overthrow of a ruler or political system. Throughout the years, political philisophes have given input in regards to the importance of proper governance over people. John Locke believes that the contract between the people and the government was bilateral, meaning that human nature was characterized by tolerance and reason. In contrast, Thomas Hobbes believes that humans can only live together in peace, without civil conflict through the obedience to a sovereign. The impact of both philisophes theories can be challenged within the current state of tyranny in Egypt. The country is in midst of a revolution, in which the people are revolting against its own government. Through a deeper analysis of The Egyptian Revolution, the link between the current state of civil war will be linked to Locke rather than Hobbes, seeing as I have a more optimistic view on man in a state of nature...
Throughout the past thirty years, President Hosni Muburak has been in charge of the social, economical and political class of Egypt. He has run the country as a fierce dictator, through multiple corruption scandals and essentially a fraudulent government. In recent months, however, the people of Egypt have rebelled against their government with the desire to obtain an authentic democratic government. By doing so, the link between the theory of natural rights, of philosopher john locke and the current revolution are shown.
“If one takes survival as the end, then we may ask what are the means necessary to that end…we have rights to life, liberty, health and property. These are natural rights…that we have in a state of nature before the introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights equally."
-John Locke
According to Locke, liberty is the natural right to every individual in society. In regards to Egypt, the liberty of the people is evidently in the form of a democratic government. If the people want a democratic government it is their natural right to have the chance to obtain it. Muburak’s oppression conflicts with the desire of the people, and blocks them from their natural rights. The civilians in Egypt are not living the lifestyle they desire, resulting in a lower quality of life than that they were born with the right to.
“Men being, as been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent”
- John Locke
In regards to Locke’s ideals, the current revolution in Egypt coincides with the ideal that men by nature do not need to listen to their government if it poorly represents them. Muburak’s tyranny does not need to be followed, nor does his dictatorship give him any power over the people. Infact, the theory explained that it’s the people’s decision who governs them, thus giving further reason for a revolution in hopes of a liberal democracy to occur.
The impact of John Locke’s theories can be challenged within the current state of tyranny in Egypt. The country is in midst of a revolution, in which the people are revolting against its own government, which can be reflected through the ideals of the rights of the citizens of the country. Mubarak’s government does not seek to maintain the liberty, health and property of it’s citizens. By not looking out for the greater good of his citizens, Muburak is losing his people's consent to enable his power. Thus, resulting in the expected outcry for change from the people—as expected through a deeper analysis of philisophe John Locke’s theories.
4/28/11
Ignatieff--I still dislike your tactics
It’s been said that idealism is a matephysical theory—in regards to the nature of reality. A metaphysical realist will believe that reality is objective—that is, its existence and nature are independent in our own minds. In regards to canadian leadership, the most prominent political figure who shares these views is current liberal party leader, Michael Ignatieff. Through Ignatieff’s liberal interventionalist rational, he has used idealism and cosmopolitanism to create his own belief system as to how an individual should view and essentially take on the world. Through a deeper breakdown of Michael Cotey Morgan’s, “Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the ‘Lesser Evils’,” it will be shown to what extent Michael Ignatieff’s views are alike or how they contrast from my own.
As stated prior, Michael Ignatieff is a pure liberal interventionalist, as he is a member of a small group of thinkers who support military action on the basis of left-leaning ideals, particularly the global defence of democracy and human rights. This rational twisted with cosmopolitanism is completely absurd—the idea of using left wing ideologies to back up right winged tactics is like sugar-coating something to make it seem like it’s something it’s not.
In reference to the current mission in Afghanistan, Ignatieff views the western attempts to uphold universal human rights abroad as interceding to protect the rights of those in danger, as he thinks that as a country we must have a standard of morality. Last time I checked, the war in afghanistan killed alot of innocent civilians and created even more social and political instability within the region. The fact of the matter is, war should never be justified as a peacekeeping mission to help others. War is carried out for the personal interests of a country, perhaps resources, but not for a “greater good”. In my opinion, an objective standard of morality does not exist in international affairs, and the attempt to have one is simply disingenuous.
Furthermore, Ignatieff goes on to say that the spread of democracy in the middle-eastern region is a consistently good idea. He argues that democracy reduces the likelihood of war both within and among states. It’s stated that war is better than being a by stander and not trying to help. Thus, resulting in the theory of “lesser evils”. But, if Ignatieff is really a humanitarian how can he support the invasion of other countries despite civilians being in harms way? In my opinion, for a country to invade another, get rid of it’s government to replace it with another is unjustifiable. Surely not all the civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq like the idea of one country invading another and imposing it’s views and social norms. So, it’s really hypocritical to impose theories such as “moral imagination”, where Ignatieff states we must feel how others do, when in reality he’s lacking major empathy for civilians views on being in the midst of war, or even their views on democracy. Thus, invading Afganistan was surely out of personal interests and did not promote humanitarianism, but rather imperialism.
Through analysing Michael Cotey Morgan’s, “Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the ‘Lesser Evils’,” I came to realize I dislike just about all of Ignatieff’s views in regards to war, through his moral imagination ideal, and his thoughts of finding the lesser evil in regards to humanitarian efforts. Through a liberal interventionalist rational, Ignatieff has used idealism and cosmopolitanism to create his own belief system as to how an individual should view and essentially take on the world—and I’m not really liking it. Michael Ignatieff’s western attempts to uphold universal human rights amount to imperialism, not humanitarianism afterall.
Barack Obama—Mechavellian Prince?
Leadership is the ability one has to guide, direct and influence people on a larger scale. Through proper leadership, an individual can gain the power needed to be a dominant force within a community—city—state—or even a country. Throughout the decades, Niccolo Michiavelli’s pragmatic way of mind has demonstrated how a leader should run and maintain a state given the statue of power received once elected. Michiavelli’s political guidelines within The Prince, have been set into motion through the leadership of many countries primeministers and president over the years. Through a deeper analysis of Barack Obama’s message and methods in the 2011 State of the Union Address, the link between the leadership of a present day ruler and the advice given by Niccolo Machiavelli will be shown.
- Niccolo Michiavelli
Throughout The Prince, Michiavelli emphasizes on the importance of creating a fasaud for society. If a leader demonstrates acts of genorosity and creates a trust with his people, then there will always be people to love and fear him, despite what wrongdoings do occur. As well, Michiavelli stresses the importance of giving people their current needs, rather than looking far into the future. Thus, with a happy, trusting society, with a present mind-set there will always be people to manipulate and deceive in the future, right?
“At stake right now is not who wins the next election -– after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It’s whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It’s whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.”
- Barack Obama
Through the discussion of jobs in the United States, Barack Obama is certainly showing signs of being a Michivellian Prince. He is emphasizing the importance of the current job crisis in America, and feeding the American people with the idea that he will eradicate heightened unemployment rates within the country in the near future. By telling the people what they want to hear in the moment, Obama is building his trust with the people, which according to Michiavelli, will make the people easier to deceive in the future as well.
“There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”
- Niccolo Michiavelli
Furthermore, in The Prince, Niccolo Michiavelli instills the concept that a country must always have it’s guard up against others. If countries are not fighting amongst one another, the country will be weak and at the disadvantage of others. This creates the idea of unision among the people and the ruler as they must be one to fight oppression. It is evident that a Prince must fight wars eventually, for if he doesn’t he will forfeit is power to other rulers.
“Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.”
- Barack Obama
This Mechiavellian ideal is clearly shown through Obama’s analysis of job opportunities within America. Obama stresses the need for more education in mathimatical and scientific sectors, as other countries are far more innovative then Americans. The Chinese stress the importance of education, thus resulting with a surging technologically innovative China. The world is in the midst of a technology race, and Americans are beginning to traipst behind. Obama is implementing the idea that if the US does not create proper educational programs, they will lose power through lack of education. He promotes the idea of new education programs within the US, unifying the states as a stronger, more-educated country. This creates the idea of unision among the people and the ruler and ultimately show that President Obama is fighting this war hands on, like a Prince should, according to Michiavelli.
Niccolo Michiavelli’s pragmatic way of mind has demonstrated how a leader should run and maintain a state given the statue of power received once elected. Furthermore, his political guidelines within The Prince, have shown how ideals such as the importance of love/fear fasaud and the idea of a unified state in regards to war will heighten the power of a leader. Through a deeper analysis of the 2011 State of the Union Address, the ideals of Michiavelli were shown through President Barack Obama His apparition of being a loving leader combined with his emphasis on the necessity of education whilst the world is in the midst of a technological arms race shows Obama’s place as a Prince. However, despite being a well-spoken, charming leader, one must recall,as Michiavelli once stated, “Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality.”