1.why is modern poverty different from what of a century ago?
The modern poverty is different from a century age, because now more people are living in poverty. Galbraith points out there are two kinds of poverty which are case poverty, and insular poverty. Vase poverty is when an individual is poor and live in poverty due to many defects that he/she may have for example no education, mental issues, and as Galbraith mentions alcoholism or discrimination. Insular poverty is when a group, island, or majority live in poverty. In today’s society(modern poverty) I think it’s a major issue on insular poverty because a city like Detroit for example is an insular poverty which leads the country of unemployment. These are the people who don’t have a job, live off social security, and welfare. The people who do have a job get paid minimum wage living paycheck by paycheck to feed themselves and their children. I would say a century age everyone was pretty much living off the same income, it didn’t matter how much education you had, you just had to learn how to read, write, and count. But it did matter whether you were black or white. It seems like a century ago or doing slavery the white’s were the bourgeoisie and the black’s were the proletariat. Now ,any race can either be described as case poverty or insular poverty as Galbraith said “Race which acts to locate people by their color rather than the proximity to employment”(Galbraith 408). Galbraith mentioned in the reading that there can be certain steps that can eradicate(erase: abolish) poverty which I disagree. I think that there will always be poverty, like their will always be wealth. Poverty and wealth is not a choice it’s the way society is. People are not born rich their parents may be but the child is not, same with poor or low income people who live off welfare. These people or children live in poverty because that’s the way they grew up so its not chosen. I understand what Galbraith tries to say but in order to eliminate poverty everyone has to have a job that pays well, and live in urban cities.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Blog 10/The Communist Manifesto by:Karl Marx
What benefits does Karl Marx expect communism to provide the proletariat?
- According to the reading and what I understand Karl Marx believed that the “communist should provide abolition of property”(Marx 368). From what I understand about the reading is that the proletarians was treated unfairly. The bourgeoisie was the who owned property, and the proletarians owned nothing but their work produced wealth”(Marx 334). Marx believed that people aren’t doing anything in the society, and discussed issues such as child exploitation shows how society are not protecting children or not doing anything about how children are getting raped and the men are not getting prosecuted. He discuss the women in society are exploiting themselves” the communist have no need to introduce community of women”(Marx 372). My idea of everything regarding wealth and poverty is somebody has to be wealthy(bourgeoisie) and somebody has to be poor or live in a low income community. But the proletarians have much more to worry about such as not being able to find because of no education, and as Marx the antagonism between capital and wage labor. Marx is on the proletarian side because his family experienced living on the rough side when he was growing one of the issues he brought up was starvation. The government should be more concerned about the people who are living in low poverty. He discuss and address issues like wealth, production, agriculture, and machinery. In today’s society these issues still in effect as of today, there are many people of all races who live in low income communities and no one is taking the chance to do anything about it.
- According to the reading and what I understand Karl Marx believed that the “communist should provide abolition of property”(Marx 368). From what I understand about the reading is that the proletarians was treated unfairly. The bourgeoisie was the who owned property, and the proletarians owned nothing but their work produced wealth”(Marx 334). Marx believed that people aren’t doing anything in the society, and discussed issues such as child exploitation shows how society are not protecting children or not doing anything about how children are getting raped and the men are not getting prosecuted. He discuss the women in society are exploiting themselves” the communist have no need to introduce community of women”(Marx 372). My idea of everything regarding wealth and poverty is somebody has to be wealthy(bourgeoisie) and somebody has to be poor or live in a low income community. But the proletarians have much more to worry about such as not being able to find because of no education, and as Marx the antagonism between capital and wage labor. Marx is on the proletarian side because his family experienced living on the rough side when he was growing one of the issues he brought up was starvation. The government should be more concerned about the people who are living in low poverty. He discuss and address issues like wealth, production, agriculture, and machinery. In today’s society these issues still in effect as of today, there are many people of all races who live in low income communities and no one is taking the chance to do anything about it.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Blog 9
Martha C. Nussbaum- The Central Human Functional Capabilities
-What are the central human capabilities?
The central human capability to Nussbaum means what a person should be doing “she sees justice in what a person does as much as in what a person should be capable of doing(Nussbaum pg 210)”. To me central human capabilities means that humans have rights and freedom to do what they want as citizens, defiantly the one’s who pay taxes. Individuals have the capability to protest and say what they feel is right, because we are the ones who have to live in this country so we should have a say so on what goes on. Nussbaum discussed that’s its not enough just to have the right to vote, but making a clear choice to vote or not. I agree because it’s a choice that individuals have the right to vote or not , and a choice for individuals to have primary goods, such as wealth, opportunity, powers, freedom, income, and health, so I believe it’s a choice that we all have to make in this just society and its part of human life. She also discuss that primary goods is what the citizens need are from the point of view of political justice (Nussbaum 221). I agree because the primary goods that’s listed are needed by citizens and how would we be able to survive without it, even though they are all primary issues in today’s society. I think that everything is based on a choice, and Nussbaum argues that everything such a s voting, health, and income is based on choice then there wouldn’t be anyone starving of hunger or homeless. I believe it’s the way society is and people are loosing their jobs and women having children that that they can’t afford to feed. I hope that society change, because I wouldn’t want the next generation to grow up the way society id now.
-What are the central human capabilities?
The central human capability to Nussbaum means what a person should be doing “she sees justice in what a person does as much as in what a person should be capable of doing(Nussbaum pg 210)”. To me central human capabilities means that humans have rights and freedom to do what they want as citizens, defiantly the one’s who pay taxes. Individuals have the capability to protest and say what they feel is right, because we are the ones who have to live in this country so we should have a say so on what goes on. Nussbaum discussed that’s its not enough just to have the right to vote, but making a clear choice to vote or not. I agree because it’s a choice that individuals have the right to vote or not , and a choice for individuals to have primary goods, such as wealth, opportunity, powers, freedom, income, and health, so I believe it’s a choice that we all have to make in this just society and its part of human life. She also discuss that primary goods is what the citizens need are from the point of view of political justice (Nussbaum 221). I agree because the primary goods that’s listed are needed by citizens and how would we be able to survive without it, even though they are all primary issues in today’s society. I think that everything is based on a choice, and Nussbaum argues that everything such a s voting, health, and income is based on choice then there wouldn’t be anyone starving of hunger or homeless. I believe it’s the way society is and people are loosing their jobs and women having children that that they can’t afford to feed. I hope that society change, because I wouldn’t want the next generation to grow up the way society id now.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Blog 8
What are the “primary goods” that people in a society need?
- The John Rawls reading, I thought was a little difficult but interesting to read. Rawls describe the primary goods that individuals must and should have which are “freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, powers and income (Rawls 196)”. Rawls has the personality like King, and Rousseau’s because both authors and many other previous authors cared about the primary goods of individuals rights and believed justice and government should be fair. I agree with Rawls because I believe that people should be treated fairly in our society. I really agree with Rousseau’s statement when he discussed that people are not being outspoken in today’s society and if more people want equality they stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their fights. “Justice should equal fairness to everyone ( Rawls 197)”. Fairness to me means the government and state being fair to individuals and individuals doing what’s right to keep government fair to them. John Rawls issue relates to the issues in today’s society because far as income the government and state taking out more money to me its not fair because it seems that the people who are working can’t support their household because we’re working to pay the government. The people who don’t have a job its hard for them to get one because of the low budget, and companies are moving out the city and more people are moving. Far as wealth issues those are the people who have to pay more taxes because there’s no jobs and the people who are not working have to get on aid. I think that’s unfair because those people are paying more taxes for someone else to live off the money that they make. Rawls understand the way the government work and the primary goods that people should have is a must.
- The John Rawls reading, I thought was a little difficult but interesting to read. Rawls describe the primary goods that individuals must and should have which are “freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, powers and income (Rawls 196)”. Rawls has the personality like King, and Rousseau’s because both authors and many other previous authors cared about the primary goods of individuals rights and believed justice and government should be fair. I agree with Rawls because I believe that people should be treated fairly in our society. I really agree with Rousseau’s statement when he discussed that people are not being outspoken in today’s society and if more people want equality they stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their fights. “Justice should equal fairness to everyone ( Rawls 197)”. Fairness to me means the government and state being fair to individuals and individuals doing what’s right to keep government fair to them. John Rawls issue relates to the issues in today’s society because far as income the government and state taking out more money to me its not fair because it seems that the people who are working can’t support their household because we’re working to pay the government. The people who don’t have a job its hard for them to get one because of the low budget, and companies are moving out the city and more people are moving. Far as wealth issues those are the people who have to pay more taxes because there’s no jobs and the people who are not working have to get on aid. I think that’s unfair because those people are paying more taxes for someone else to live off the money that they make. Rawls understand the way the government work and the primary goods that people should have is a must.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Blog 7
What power has man had over women, according to Stanton?
- The power that man had over women according to Stanton was women didn’t have the right to vote, they couldn’t file for divorce no matter how bad the relationship my be if they were to get married they couldn’t own their own property. Stanton made some very good arguments she got tired of women being treated as houeslaves sitting around and not doing anything she just wanted equal rights for both men and women. When she had the convention men and women wanted to hear what she had to say about the rights of women to vote she made a good statement according the Declaration of Independence by saying” without women voting in legislation, women couldn’t be able to change the status quo” which I highly agree. I kind of think it was harsh what her father told her that he wish she was born a boy, what he said didn’t stop her from still trying to fight for women rights even though she was the only girl in her local secondary school she knew that women education was very low. I know for sure that backing the 40s and 50s men didn’t want their wife to go to school and some of the men wouldn’t even go pick their wife up from school if they did attend school the men would rather for her to walk home , because back then there wasn’t even many females attending school or college because they were profound to be stay at home moms and wives. I think that Stanton was a very powerful woman and she reminds me of a female Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau because all of them had to struggle to try to fight for citizens needs and wants which was to give the people rights and freedom so everyone wouldn’t be so segregated with each other. King, Stanton, and Thoreau all had to discover from bumps and bruises but they made it and in the end they all was respected by state, government, and citizens.
- The power that man had over women according to Stanton was women didn’t have the right to vote, they couldn’t file for divorce no matter how bad the relationship my be if they were to get married they couldn’t own their own property. Stanton made some very good arguments she got tired of women being treated as houeslaves sitting around and not doing anything she just wanted equal rights for both men and women. When she had the convention men and women wanted to hear what she had to say about the rights of women to vote she made a good statement according the Declaration of Independence by saying” without women voting in legislation, women couldn’t be able to change the status quo” which I highly agree. I kind of think it was harsh what her father told her that he wish she was born a boy, what he said didn’t stop her from still trying to fight for women rights even though she was the only girl in her local secondary school she knew that women education was very low. I know for sure that backing the 40s and 50s men didn’t want their wife to go to school and some of the men wouldn’t even go pick their wife up from school if they did attend school the men would rather for her to walk home , because back then there wasn’t even many females attending school or college because they were profound to be stay at home moms and wives. I think that Stanton was a very powerful woman and she reminds me of a female Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau because all of them had to struggle to try to fight for citizens needs and wants which was to give the people rights and freedom so everyone wouldn’t be so segregated with each other. King, Stanton, and Thoreau all had to discover from bumps and bruises but they made it and in the end they all was respected by state, government, and citizens.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Blog 6
Why was King disappointed in white churches?
King has been disappointed in the white churches and their leadership. A reverend at a Christian church by the name of reverend Stallings wanted African Americans to come his church and worship, when people wasn’t even segregated it was on a “nonsegerated basis”. I believe that King thought that, since black churches really didn’t have any money they would be supported by the leadership of the white churches. He was disappointed because they didn’t even take stand to help, I would have been very disappointed also because living in Birmingham mostly there are churches there, and to come there thinking since everyone is equal regarding religion wise they would have better understanding since King was a Christian. King stated that “there was a time when church was very powerful, and worthy to suffer for what they believe “(King 186). I agree with King because majority of people who are Christians always come together and try to help other communities regarding what ethnicity, age, or gender people come from. I understand what King was thinking that a white church would be able to help him not, but he got turned but he got turned down. King also stated that people should “obey God rather than man it will lose ethnicity”, which I agree because people wouldn’t be the same, no one would be accepted meaning everyone would have their own groups, and not care about others. Even though the white churched didn’t support King in leadership, he had a positive attitude which people liked about him, because he knew that Birmingham would still be a great city and showed that King will always be a great leader.
King has been disappointed in the white churches and their leadership. A reverend at a Christian church by the name of reverend Stallings wanted African Americans to come his church and worship, when people wasn’t even segregated it was on a “nonsegerated basis”. I believe that King thought that, since black churches really didn’t have any money they would be supported by the leadership of the white churches. He was disappointed because they didn’t even take stand to help, I would have been very disappointed also because living in Birmingham mostly there are churches there, and to come there thinking since everyone is equal regarding religion wise they would have better understanding since King was a Christian. King stated that “there was a time when church was very powerful, and worthy to suffer for what they believe “(King 186). I agree with King because majority of people who are Christians always come together and try to help other communities regarding what ethnicity, age, or gender people come from. I understand what King was thinking that a white church would be able to help him not, but he got turned but he got turned down. King also stated that people should “obey God rather than man it will lose ethnicity”, which I agree because people wouldn’t be the same, no one would be accepted meaning everyone would have their own groups, and not care about others. Even though the white churched didn’t support King in leadership, he had a positive attitude which people liked about him, because he knew that Birmingham would still be a great city and showed that King will always be a great leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)