Thoughts on Economic Freedom

I also agree with Friedman and Jordan in saying that there needs to be inequality in a society because a completely equal society does not progress. In addition, it has been proven that the poorest people in countries with a decent amount of inequality have more than the people in completely equal societies. Since Friedman says that the government is in place to control what the market cannot, it makes sense that governmental control is what drives societies in the wrong direction; the market alone can manage to take care of balanced inequalities. Also, I once read that people only feel poor depending on how poor they are compared to those around them, so is it important to consider how people feel to determine if equality is something to strive towards. Does it matter how poor people consider themselves to be or how poor they are? If it is more important how people feel, then governmental control is ideal.

Question for Friedman

Clearly Friedman is an advocate of Mill's individual in society. He says, in an example about social security: "True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses" (9). Is freedom for the individual/minority, according to Friedman, based entirely in the ability, in a free market, to be able to acquire money to raise awareness for the individual's belief? Friedman makes off the greatness of capitalism being the ease at which to vocalize your belief just by, "convinc[ing] a few wealthy people," and, "it is only necessary to persuade [media groups] that the propagation can be financially successful" (17). But it seems to be Friedman is over-simplifying the injustices of class caused by money inequality. Take, for instance, one of the leading advantages people with money have over those who don't: education. Can the lesser educated poor man convince the wealthy educated man he both has a belief that's important and will make the wealthy man money? Do all beliefs worth fighting for even fall under a category of "profit"? Does that immediately make them unimportant to Friedman? What happened to the importance of the individual? Or consider other inequalities produced by money, such as "taste". If the man is dressed in overalls, instead of a "proper" suit and tie that all business men know to wear, going to even have the man's attention? And if so many individuals seek to win the rich man's attention and support, how does the poor man stand out? So much is dictated by problems of money.

Thoughts on Rousseau

The questions I am choosing to ponder while reading Rousseau include:

Does human being in the state of nature have reason? Why does human being in the state of nature not need language? And finally (because of course we all know I am extremely concerned with this subject) Can human being in the state of nature love others?

Rousseau thinks that the state of nature is freedom. He thinks that modern society disrupted this natural, perfect state. In his ideology, humans don't have reason and that's why they don't have conflict in the state of nature. They simply exist with each other. Once modern society comes along, that's when you get the greed and fear stuff going on. In the natural state, man will only fight for self-preservation.

Why don't they need language? Because they don't have reason. Is this a chicken or the egg type situation? I'm not sure. Did they not have reason and therefore they didn't have language or vice versa? We know that they felt pity for others, but not love...which brings me to my next point.

If Rousseau is comparing humans in the natural state to animals of today, why does he say they never loved?! I know for sure that animals love. And not just because they are domesticated. Lions in packs and other animals have self-preservation for themselves (duh) and love-preservation for others like their cubs and such (new word). We know Rousseau says that man in the natural state feels pity. How far off is love from pity, really? Eventually, these emotions get deeper and we are left with 1) competition 2) self-comparison with others 3) hatred 4) urge for power which all lead us to 'civil society' --- exactly like the one we so humbly live in today.

Questions on Locke's Second Treatise on Government

Why did Locke write the Two Treatises?

What is the historical context?
What is the basis for authority, if not in the divine right of kings?
What are humans like in the state of nature?
What is human freedom in the state of nature? How is human freedom dependent upon reason? How is it dependent upon nature?

John Locke Second Treatise of Government: Presentation Points and Questions

What are humans natural freedoms?
The importance of property and inheritance in a person's right.
The difference between a state of nature and a state of government.
The laws of reason dictate humans decision in a natural state.
Humans give up some of the freedoms of a natural state for the protection of the government.
The makings of a good government include a body that can be appealed to, ruled by a majority, has an executive, legislative, and judicial function.