idealso4

Wed 10/15/08

seems to be saying that the people who choose to be subservient are not as well off as they should have been if they wrre free ..

we can agree with that but is he really delivering what he promised .. util. arguement for living your life as you see fit.

certainly some utilitarian arguments in here but they get mixed up with arguements taat almost seem like hes visualizing liberty as being intrinsically valuable?

idea that human beings are improvable

utlimately what benthm had in mind was not only ethics but a utl. calculous .. a numerical value tahat you coul dassign to all kinds of human experience .. utils.

.. very reductionsitic way of viewing human nature

started out as mathematical.

wife's big influence: gender equality

-------

Fri 10/17/08

page 129.

we may see experiments in living that are actually attractive enough to adopt

a kind of elitism that crops into chapter 3

page 131 -- tastes of society controlled by masses

has kind of a disdain in general for public opinion especially when it's formed by the masses

.. he would consider himself one of those few lifestyles worth living - salt of the earth

influened by wihelp van helbult

in order for individuality to flurish, you have to have two necessary ingredientes:

liberty

variety of situations --

page 139 -

in his society, the variety of situations is declining

educaation, inporvement in communicaton, commerce

promotes this decline of variety

do all these things that he mentioned lead to an equalizing of situation?

if one of the utilitarian benefits is that we can learn from other people, we have to know about other people. Communications , which he calls a leveling thing, should be an instead (to Thorsen) a way to know about other ways to live.

remember internet discussion: you can be exposed to a variety of different lifestypes or ideas on the internet .. room for minority lifestyles to flourish

can argue that both ways

getting into chapter 4:

mill has often been misinterpretted to be a libertarian (absolute minimal government) but he's not actually a libertarian

he several times mentions obligations that the state might enforce on individuals even with a general principle that hte state should not intervene in things affecting just the individual.

first page : says he's not a social contract theorist.

list of things society should expect from citizens

could say that that's still a minimal state

but later on in Chapter 5 , mill advoates certain intrusions into lives that ven go beyond what we have in society today.

page 142.

general principle .. society should not interfere with things that only affect the individual

doesn't say that you shouldn't council a person that you see is doing something bad .. says we need more of those people

so we have a right and duty to express to the person that they are doing something not benefiicial to himself or other

so it's right for people to look after each other

not an isolationist

goes on to try to describe what it is that we can do that's no coercive in terms of dealing with someone whos actions are reprehensible in some fassion.

page 143. 1st full paragraph ..

so you could see someone doing something that is only self-regarding but you think that is disgusting .. not good for him to be doing

you may say that you just oon't hang out with that person .. well the loss of your friendship might be hurtful to that person

well leaving that person is perfectly OK based on that behavior .. morally justified .. that might injure that person .. you might even warn the person "if you keep that up"

just in case that person wants to change to keep you.

mentions the things that would be appropriate to do

144 .

have a right to avoid it

optional good offices: could mean jobs.

this is where it gets dicy .. close as he gets to giving examples of things youre allowed to do in the face of something morally disgusting .. but they're kinda vague

we should really talk behind someone's back?!?!

suppose we run a small business .. suppose i'm really pro-life and one worker I hoired is pro-choice .. and I'm really uncomfortable with that so I fire him.

.. that's a severe form of punnishment / social coersion .. so one of the things difficult about thi essay is trying to decide where that line is where society has a moral right to atake certain actions and when it goes beyond that boundry line.

legal interference is pretty clear cut ..

but when you talk about just a social response to a persons actions that isn't illegal then it gets kind ambiguous

really significant question in this whole topic .. where is that line?

page 146-147 - another problematic question

claim that when a person lives in society no matter what they do affects others in some fassion. . is it possible to distinguish betwen those that only affect the individual .. tries to address this counter argument

in a vague sense, any individual behavior affects others .. if they know about it they can be disgusted by .. but doesn't really mean they can interfere

difficult to see where the boundary is ..

how much does the action ahve to affect others before it's considered to be affecting others?

where is that division line?

that's another case of somethingwhere the dividing line is hard to see

so, dividing line between self-regarding act and act that affects others is very vague

and line between what society and and cannot do to a person regarding a self-regarding act is also valuge

so that makes it difficult to apply his principles in real life .. becaase at some point you have to separate.

Mill talks about this again in chapter 4

if you really look historically , thre's probably never been a society on the face of the earthy thatt a society has never really folowed this .. plenty of things are illegal that Mil would say is self-regarding behavior

country that comes closest to this is the NL

legal marijuana, places with legal prostitutes

all states have to some extent violated this particular rule .. so in reality very difficult to achieve even though it seems simple and reasonable

and Mill has several examples of this violation in the world .. Spain and it's religion for example.

also talks about savetarian legislation .. anything(law) based on religious principle is a violation of Mill's rule. .. perhaps it would be nice, he says to have a univeral day off, but to make it a sunday and for religious reasons is in violation of Mill's ideas.

closes the chapter with a discussion of Mormonism .. kept moving out o make their own society

big issue: polygomy .. and mill comes out and states that he doesn't like that .. but he says .. these people enter these agreements in this society wwth their own free will and he can't see a reason under his theory that society at large should interfere with what they are doing

.. is problematic if it involves child abuse .. that is ano other-regarding action , then

a person hires a prostitute .. two adults .. that's a self-regarding act for those ttwo people

similarly if a man and five woman have entered into a poligamous relationship, that's self-regarding for them... but if you're marrying women off at 8 .. clearly below being an adult .. then that affects others now .. and probably injuring others and then society would have a right o do something about it.

another distinction: every time there's an activity that could affect others, society has a right to get involved, but that might not be the wisest thing to do.

ex: a competition -- the losers are going to be injured .. in theory society can interfere with that but it wouldn't be smart to fo so .. competition is probably what makes a society run well.

Chapter 5 -

take fundamental principle and apply it to real examples

for example, drunkenness:

part of your liberty to go out and get drunk but if found that a person creates and injury because of being drunk, it can be prohibited that he drink in the future

if a person has an obligation to others (ex guard) and cannot fullfill that activity, then we can also interfere .. person unable to carry out a recognized duty to others

.. or if that person has children that he has to care for with a job, etc .. at that point society could interfere if the drunkness was afffecting that

but otherwise, at person should be allowed to do that

similar arguement could be made about idolness .. if htat person is only affectiing himself but if he's responsible for children, etc .. then that could be interfered with by society.

question of protitution / gambling

running a gambling house, running a house of prostitution

page 169 / 170. .. in general, the activity of gambling should not be interfered wwth as long as people doing so have done so in their own free will

similarly for the act of prostitution -- that's their business

with respect to being an owner of gambling / prostitution house .. the ownership of such a house falls right on the boundry line of his principle and can be argued either way

even though society might allow prostitution, it's not an idea thing but you allow it to follow the higher principle, but on the other hand, the people who run casinos, and houses of prostitution are not doing it because they believe in it, they're doing it to make money .. so they have a natural bias .. encouraging people to do this, contrary to what society would prefer .. so society should be able to prohibit a casino.

self-regarding --> victimless crime

but doesn't allowing drunkenness provide an example for others to follow?

mill would say if the activity really is injurious to the individual wouldn't it actually function as a negative example?

how do people learn to go along with what's best for society?

.. what's his belief in the state nature .. we'll start with that question in class on monday

new stuff heads up:

enemy of the people - henry gibson

probably would have been th3 tpe of person that mill would have called the salt of the earth

so some of his plays that he wrote were almost scandals .. took a lot of criticism

but will would say we have to allow him to speak becuase he was probably right in some ways

genesis of the play .. comes from two plays that preceed it. .. they lead to some of the most harsh criticism .. and Enemy of the People is a response .. sorta an allagory of his experience

Main character Thomas docman .. doctor in norway

natural hotsprings .. tourist attraction

this medical officer finds out that the waters are polluted by a tannery

says we gotta shut these things down for health reasons .. but the two is against him .. it's their source of livelyhoood .. so think of gibson as identifying with the doctor

but even though he id's with him, the doctor is portrayed as a bumbling naive dork. this play is also a comedy but the subject is so serious the humar can sometimes pass you by.

-------

Mon 10/20/08

Oneida

make sure that group paper all fits together

print sorce -- as opposed to a web site .. ie, either from book , journal, etc

last two questions on study guide on "on LIberty"

topics covered right at the end of Chapter 5

intervention by the government into our individual lives

education .. and the responsbilities of parents

every child should have to be educated .. no matter what the parents think

.. education has an effect on other parties .. not a self-regarding thing

so there are certain issues where the state should interefere with local behavior .

that's similar to what we have in this country . compulsory education

public education:

pp 176-177: low opinion of it .. molds people to be exactly the same .. public education probably leads to simply inoctrination of he population into teh conventually OK ideas that the government decides on

so wants education but would prefer to have it all done privately so there's a variety of ideas / approaches

.. how would you control .. calls for a series of national tests. .. having to be objective tests rather than requires students to believe in a certain opinion

.. not that you coulldn't test religion .. you oould test on knowing what the various religions say or believe .. but would not requir3e a belive if a certain thing

he also has some fairly strong feels in general about the state having an interest in who has children

.. although in the US, we like to control a lot of things, w'ere reaaly hands off on allowing people to have children

.. mill would disagree with that .. says state has a vested interest in controlling htat

.. making ssre that children are born into families where the benefit of the child is not going to be harmed

.. law such that you have to pass a means test before you can get married .. assumpting being that people who have children should deomonstrate that they can have them .. that's about as far from being a libertarian as you can get

.. other ways a government could control not having children .. doesn't get into it .. but probably presuming that you wouldhn't see a lot of births outside of marriage

seems to put a lot of care into the welbeing of children .. willong to put oup wiht a lot of intervetion to ensure that children are provided for

last question that mill deals with is "positive liberty"

.. negative liberty .. what we normally consider traditional liberty -- freedom of speech, etc

positive liberty .. the opporunity that we as human being haseve to live a fullfulling life

at the end of this essay, mill deals with this idea .. should the government be involved in projects that would enhance our positive liberty?

for example:

social security could be looked at in that way .. alllow people an income in retirement that they wouldn't normally have

or when the government takes over big projects such as infrastructure .. providing service that ultimately enhance all our lives

sophisticated transportation system

what role should government have in enhancing positive liberties

.. pretty suspicious of government .. for the most part against it .. rather see such projects carried out by private interests

three reasons why he feels that way..( wouldn't say thtat they should never be involved .. ex: building roads) in general against government projects

the three reasons:

1) the people clostest to the issue are more likely to do a better job of it .. if private enterprise can do a better job than government .. it would be best to let them do it

2) an educational thing: develop and are eduated in these processes .. if the government does too much, you get dependant on it .. moraaly uplifting for individuals to do this

3) fraid of something toqueville was afraid of .. start to count on goveernment to do too much . nameless burocracy taat controls our lives .. .. so the negative freedoms .. of speeach etc .. probably aren't valueable at that point anyway

but not afraid to have to government interfere with families and cildren

intro to enemy of the people:

Henrik Ibsen

surly one of the top two draatists of the 19th centry .. maybe be one of the greatest dramatists in western history

see outline.

so his childdhood was really faily unhappy

.. not really interested in drugs, so started writing plays

ran theatre in Bergin, Norway

switched from romanticism to realism

first really sucessfull playright to write dramatic plays in a realistic mode

imagining that you're looking into somebody's window .. dialogue has to sound like real people

have to say something really profound but difficult to get that said into the mouths of average pepple talking in the vernacular

father of realism

affected all the play writing at least through the earlier part of the 20th centry

three main plays:

one of the things that he added to the realistic movement was the idea of not following morally conventional , traditional conclusions

.. sometmes tey offended people as a result

really a critic of the artificiality of society

determined to write plays that exposed the hiposcracy and tried to expose real social truths .. so wrote the social dramas

A Doll's House

- - - - - - - -

a young married couple, torvald is a banker, nora is a housewife, young children all under 8 .. nice but unextravagant middle class house

right after they first got married torvold suffered from an illsent that required him to go to some other climate to get better

to get money for that , she secretly borrowed money from a bank .. forged a signature of her late father .. never told Torvald

so over the course of the marriage, she is repaying the debt

Nils Krogstad shows up .. employee of the bank that trovald has just been hired to be head of ..

tovald has known nils and doesn't like him, wants to fire him ..

but he is aware of how nora has done this illegal thing .. so he comes to her and blackmails her .. "you gotta talk your husband into not firing me"

she tries to convince er hustband but he's going to fire Nils anyway

eventually blackmails torvald ..

so nora is forced to tell the whole story

Torvald vlows up .. gets really angry with her .. insults and criticizes her .. all he thinks about is how she's embarassed him .. not about her sacrifices

this incident is lie an epifany for nora .. realizes that he's really a petty person .. realizes that he never thought of her as anything more than a doll

about that time, nils backs down, torvold is really relieved, but things aren't OK because ora has become disillusioned .. she says she has to leave to find out who she is.

.. left her house and abandoned her three kids.

that's the end of the story

morally justifiable for this woman to find herself as a real human being even if she has to abandon her family responsibliliies ..

not a conventinal ending .. and he was criticized for it.

. decides to write a play where the woman in this new pay will do the morall conventional thing and see what happens as a result

.. he morally conventional thing she does happens 20 years before the play .. finds out her husband is cheating on her but decides to stick with him

ff to the time of the play (10 years after husband has died) .. buuilt an orphanage for her husband .. going to dedicate the orphaniage

as a consequ3nce of this dedication, her son, comes back from paris (Oswald)

eventually the orphanage burns down before it can be dedicated, but along the way, ibsen deals with every possible taboo.

this didn't go over very well wit conventional public opinion .. conservative press and even the liberal press got on his case. -> london daily telegraph

ipsen is now outraged .. everyone is against him .. he wants to strike back .. so he writes an enemy of the people .. in about 9 months (normally takes about 2 years to write a play)

Stockmann is in an analagous situation as he was.

getting back at the massess and the liberal press

Hovstad - symbol for the liberal press .. and as the play proceeds , you see Hovstad start out on a high moral plane and drifts down to just an aweful person.

the play itself:

first act .. house of stockmann

Hovstad and Billing are there.

.. Mayor Peter Stockmann

sibling rivalry; has to do with the Baths

dr. stockmann says it was really his idea

peter -- well you're a dreamer .. i'm the guy who canj get things done

peter a little jealous of thomas in a variety of ways

think about lifestyle:

wife, sons, daughter in 20's

mayor . a lot of duties

lonely .. kinda shows up just to visit

doesn't seem extravagant .. seems to be morally opposed to extravagance and the way his brother lives

may have kinda a "blah" life

peter .. not really the villan .. you can kinda feel for the guy .. he's not perfect, he's not honest .. when the time comes, he can do the expedient thing

but not for his own personal welfare .. but rather for the people he identifies with .. the elite of society .. the types of people who whould have invested to create the baths in the first place

sone of his ideas mya not be very good .. but not a real villian .. more of a foil to Dr. Stockmann

on one level Dr. is a hero .. wants to stick up for the truth .. but in other respects, not that quite admirable of a person

Dr. .. we know he's clueless .. he thinks that he'll be a hero for discovering this problem with the baths???

willing to put his whole family on ht eline for this issue

on one leve, he's a very moral person becaase all he can think about are the durth .. but doesn't seem to be aware of moral dilemmas ..

standing up for a principle when you know that it can affect others that are close to you

she he disregard the welfare of his wife and children .. maybe he should .. but it only takes him about 10 seconds to think about it!!

doesn't seem to appreciate the complexity of the situation

clueless about what the ramifications of this problem will be .. does't realize that they'll have to close the baths for two years .. and how much the repairs will cost

understand the medical issue but not the civil engineering issue .. assuming you can correct this fairly quickly

got this maid named randina .. never can remember her name. .. a little concieted

convinced that he is the only one who could be the medical officer

foe seems to be peter stockmann but there are some empathetic qualities of him

hovstad , editor of th liberal press

.. seems to be a confederate of Dr. .. going to be his aid in the whole process

.. altereior motive is really to embarass the establishment

find any opportunity to discredit the powers that be.

Petra - "rock" - idealistic .. about the only character who has been 100% on her father's side .. even the mother tried to talk Dr. out of this but petra she's 100% .. so that's why her name means rock

book that she rejects .. probably a conventional moral story .. to her, probably overly simplistic .. maybe giving the read what the reader wanted .. she's upset .. thought that the Herold's main objective was to give the truth

hovsted also gives a more personal reason to support Dr. S .. he's interested in Petra romantically

.. Petra is enraged at this .. also symbolic of her character

very ethical and cannot be swayed from her moral stance

read final two acts.

-------

Wed 10/22/08

friday test:

locke, mill, toqueville, ipsen

format > quotations

essay questions:

one of the m will be:

questio regarding locke's state of nature . how does he describe it,, what are the inconveniences of the state of nature that lead to a social contract what do they gain and lose by this.

ID 6 of 7 quotations

Morton Kiil - thomas stockmann's father-in-law

response to problem with the baths .. illusion to him having political power at some point earlier .. so he has knid of a grudge .. so sorta on the side of Stockmann in this particular plan .. thinks that it's some kind of a trick .. bacteria like these things you can't see .. not too unusual for the time

.. but if you can pull that joke on the authorities, i'm with you becaase i don like them.

act 3 - before act 3, the role of the liberal press in regards to stockmann : portraying themselves as defenders of the truth .. if that means turning the establishment out of power, so be it .. alterior motive

.. as the play proceeds, the liberal press goes on a continuous decline

print my report as you said you wold

but after he leave, peter shows up: peter tells about how the plan will shut down baths, cost a lot of money

originally, the people who invested in the baths would foot the bill

but when peter shows up, the investors won't put any money in it . so the public will have to pay .. bailout

asleksan .. when they hear the real story and who's going to pay, then they don't want to print the thomas report

peter report - there is a problem, but it's nothig that we can't handle .. we'll take care of it, don't worry about it

moral slide of hovstad and aslaksan .. looking at the situation rather taan what is moral and just

aslaksan: favorite word: moderation .. doesn't like to ruffle feathers, rock the boat

page 49 . I will oppose the governmenn at times ...

basically says that he'll opposte the government as long as it will ignore him . i want to complain only when it won't be effective.

at thee end of act to .. Mr.s Stockmann not necessarily supporting thomas on his plan to fight the authorities

page 42: wasn't even aware that there are otther ramifications there .. when he goes off on thiss heroic fight

.. doesn't take him long to decide that he's going to do it anyway

interestingly in act 3 .. mrs. shows up at the newspaper office and by the end of act 3 , she's on his side.

end of act 3: page 65

dr. s talking to billing and hovstad, etc

mrs. why is everybody against you

dr. i'll tell you why

right after being insulted, mrs. decides to stick by him.

why is that in there .. comic effect?

equating standing up for her husband like being a man.

act 2 .. seems to be more the natural role for the society .. expectations of the mother

.. may represent the strong woman .. independant act by defending her husband .. unconventional way a woman should act in this situation .. kinda heroic .. probably approves of what' she's doing

.. making a point a little more subtley than in A doll's house

.. about women should take a sstronger role in society.

maybe it just goes right ove her head

insult is a fairly mild thing, .. she maintinas her eye on the important issue

illustrates how wise she is to stay focused on the big issues

also see sthat everyone is aginst him through the act and perhaps want to take his side

been a whitness to the drifting of hovstad and a have changed their tune .. has more knowledge about what's going on .. observer

by end of act 3, ovsted and a are refusing to print the report

Dr. says ill print my own report with my own money .. but can't print it

so says he'll make a speech

takes place at the house of horster . .. seems like a fair kind of guy .. not moved by the histeria of the times .. obody in the town will give him space except horster says "come over to my house"

horster really is reated in a positive light in this play

page 13 - democracy .. election coming up the election at that point was messy -- changes in the voting rules . brutal electon

horster and billing talk abbutt voting / horster says I don't bother about things like taht

- even those who know nothing about it?

seems negative .. but must remember that ipsen was a kinda anti-democratic guy.

aristocratic side to ipsen .. hey may have been writing this passage about horster as a positive thing about him .. if you interpret it that way, then you might sayy that he's positive throughout

act 4 again .. "big lecture"

all the mmain principles are there . .

trying to give a lecture .. but peter says gotta appoint a chairman .. what?!?!

peter says he can't do it .. lures his right hand man Aslekstan

Peter - makes his ownview of things and says that Dr. can't refer to the baths .

so now dr. cannot talk abouut the baths

.. now allows thomas talk about a lot more general things than the baths

if you look carefully at what thomas says .. critique is much more general .. visiualize it as ipsen saying it to his critics

.. porbably dr. is a little riled up at this .. but not good at people skills .. so vents by going off the hand rather than controlling

flavor of being a democratic process but really croud manipulation

speech really get's kinda weird

page 71

on page 74 -- "if they had sent for a vet rather than me"

75 - leaders of the baths as goats

76 - worst enemy of truth is the compact majority

majority is never right

77 - I"ve alrady said I'm ....

.. ipsen talking about himself .. vanguard of the truth.

truths as getting old .. last for 18 or 20 years and thee have to be disgarded

.. seems odd for a guy spouting capital T Truth

also weird for a scientist to say

... well is it really another word? is it a bad translation??

is this ipsen?

.. like telling someone off to yourself

.. he gets to write a play that really vents

but in a sense they represent what he thinks but he lets himself go over the top.

page 79 - big deal about dogs.

.. thinks education can make a better government -- goes against mongrol dogs.

--> people are just fit for different things .. mil chapter 3 -- people who really stand out but society government by mediocrity.

near the end where he finally goes a little bit too far .. page 82

I love this town so much ....

.. threatens total distruction

vote that he's an enemy of the people

comes up with one last outrageous thing:

page 85 - no back door for me .. treats himself as christlike

society does every possible thing they can do

- gets fired

- petra fired

- evicted

- horster gets fired

- boys get kicked out of school

... everyone kinda apologetic about it .. it's that opinion out there!

intimidation .. rock throwing

sometimes done with a killing ending

1950's .. aruthur miler rewrote the play -- takes all the humor out of it

wrote it against the mccarthy era .. rooting out communists.

what happenes instead .. he was going to go to the new world .. but decides to stick it out

decides to educate the new generation

page 105 - we'll have the school in the very room where they called me an enemy of the people

.. 12 people - more chirst figure imagery

- oul have ended with him really all by himself .. which woul have mad the last line really dramatic:

.. "the strongest man in the world is the man who stand alone"

.. but he's surrounded by his wife, his kids, and horster

.. play kinda ends on a comical note

morton kill .. tarts out on stockmanns side becaase of vendetta against the powers that be

but finds out during the speech the true story

got all this money that he was going to leave to cathrine .. buys all the shares in the baths .. tries to force stockmann to go back on what he said.

what do hovstad and a do in act five?

he thinks the whole thing is a scheme .. wants to go along and get a cut of the money

.. well we can expose you that you're creating this scheme .. like Hovstad has no ethics at all now .. started out at the top!

morton seems rather sleasy the whole time . .

"no three times" - just how definite he was.

-------

Mon 10/27/08

econ book -- a lot of issues are technical

also issue of what he thinks of human nature

wealth of nations -- 1776 ..

nations were operationg on mercantalism -- aim of any ogvernment was to accumilate gold and silver .. that twas the goal

that leads to certain concluins to how government should operate -- says that it should really be involved in the market

.. makes sense to put up a lot of tarrifs .. max exports, min inports

importance of developoing colonies

in general, the mercantalist theory -- government should play a heavy hand in econ

along comes Smith and kinda upsets things -- reall is just the opposeite .. best way to act is to take it's hands off .. laissez fiare

let private enterprise take place unrestricted

irony .. even though every individual is only looking out ofr #1 the ultimate benefit to society is great -> invisible hand

law of the market place ultimately devolves to the benefit of society as a whole.

if countries adopt that procedure, everyone will benefit ... mercantalism is a zero sum game; this is an idea that all countries can bbenefit

beginning of the classical peroid in econ theory - beginning of modern capitalism

followers to classical capitalists

.. see handout

thomas malthus - he was operating under the assumption that population grows exponentially and the food supply grows linearly

.. we were cursed to having perioid times of really scare resources, he said .. population reduced because of starvation and then the cycle would resume

.. that didn't turn out to be true -- food increased more and restrictions on births .. slowed population growth

righ after smith's book .. beginnnings of the industrial revolution in England

- small, densely populated country

- bgan to develop the factory system .. ability to produce things not just by individual labor but labor and machines

.. in terms of developing wealth .. labor was still a component but not the primary component .. capital became increasingly important in creating wealth

social problem too -- concentration of people .. cities overrun with people

slums .. life was becoming miserable

cildren working in the factories .

people working 12-14 hours a day

US kinda escaped this process becuase we were agrarian .. and we had a frontier .. so we were not necessarily compelled to adopt indsutrial practices as quickly as england did

.. didn't have it until the civil war .. needed to transport troops, weaponry etc

after the cvil war, the process just continued

.. right after the cvil war : completion of the transcontinental railroad

- second industrial revolution - period before WWI

.. technology

in later half of 19 centry .. increase in populations in cities .. tenaments, slums .. taking the worker and using him without humane thought about him

.. hands off private system

because the givernment didn't get involved with free enterprise, there really wasn't any income tax either .

concentrate captial in larger organizations .. modern corporation begins .. allows concentrations of welath .. not owned by individual .. but a bunch of people who buy shares .. when a company is inc'd .. treated like an individual

when a person owns shares .. if it goes bankrupt .. they own lose the assets of the corporation .. not the whoe assets of individuals .. limited liability

because there was on controls on the free market system .. big incentive not only to create big corporations but also to try to knock out competition

.. no rules

can price artificially low .. drive out competitor .. then raise prices artificially high

.. corporations that did not necessarily operate in the public interest

monopoly -- control of the prices

.. so we had a few people making lots of money and most everyohne else was not doing well.

guilded age .. guild .. gold coating that's cheap to make things look expensive .. twain called it htat becuse on the surface it looked good but it was concentrated in a few hands

year of the robber barron

rockefeller , carnegee, swift in meet packing

pillbery in milling

people who got extremely wealthy but most everybody was nt doing well

.. taking place not only in US but also in europe

.. one response was socialism .. fairly new word .. from 1827 .. responsee to the industrial revolution and the misoriy of it

becuase if you go back to locke .. preidustrial time .. to him wealth was generated by labor

now, in the industrial age .. a lot of wealth generated by capital

.. we all agree that we own our own labor .. but what happeens when welath is generated by machines .. can a person who owns a machine get paid even if they don't work?

even though there are different varieties of siocialism .. the wen thing they ave in common is that capital should be shared by us all

.. in an evan way .. weather or not we should be paid the same, that's another issue

but as far as the captial component, that shoud be owned but us all and we should share in it

socialism .. bank bailout plan

every modern developed country is a combo of free enterprise and socialism

marxism parallel track of social utopia

in US .. we weren't really drawn to the socialist movement that much .. there were these utopian experients but marxism never took hold very much

arrt of it is becausee there was this ethos of the rugged individual / vast contry with this frontier to be exploited .. so the cirtcomstances werent right for hhis country to experience socialism

but we did experience the problems with the indstrial rrevolution

.. there was a need to do something .. one of the things that reall struck a responsive chord was social darwism > herbert spenser .. coined "survival of the fittest"

.. spenser was playing with social evolution before darwisn came out with his speicies

.. when he read darwin, adopted some of the ideas into his own thinking

argued for a very liberitarian ogovernment .. .. should not be involved in projects to help the downtrodden .. they are there by nature .. let the struggle proceed

government intervention not a good idea becuase it interfere's with the process of social evolution

.. that kind of idea played right into the US as land of opportunity idea

optimism at this time about science and technology

. sicentific management came into vogue .. manageing companies was not just an art but you could acutaaly put it on a scientific based.

time & motion studies - metaphor for scientific management.

can feel the optimism about our ability to solve problems through science and technology

.. destroyed by 1912 .. sinking of titanic .. supposed to bbe the great success of science and technology .. unsinable and yet it sinks on it's maiden voyage

.. and the beginning of world war i

as an aditute that sicence and technology would be used to help people solve problems .. then you aave world war i .. bombarded by this technoology .. being used to destroy human life ... that really stopped the optimism of the pwer of sicence and that it would be used for the good of human kind

Edward Bellamy - 1850

. newspaper boy .. journalism

37 - marrieddand had a couple kids .. was looking atht scene of US .. and felt compelldhings for the next generation .. had this idea of how the US could solve it's problems - emerges in the book looking backward

fits in the scientific socialism category -- he proposed a US .. that is alomost 100% socialistic

.. not just the means of prooduction but that we'd all get equal pay

everyone expected to work hard and gets the same compensation

supposedly taking place in 2000

he felt that it was ggoing to be an evolutionary process .. that things that were happening when he was observing were steps .. wanted his book to help get the movement foward

. proposing this as an ideal society

didd he really believe that it would happen .. that's a tough question

didn't believe there to necessary to have a class struggle for this to happen

.. happened sort of naturally . everyone came to the conclusion that the system was bad for everybody and that we should change it for the year 2000

idn't call it socialism . but nationalism .. didn't want to be associated with marxism .. because he didn't like th idea of a violent change; nationalism is more solidarity

why over 100 years?

tranformation said to have taken place a few years after 1887 .. and that' it's been in eeffect for 100 years ..

so why 2000 .. the he could play with futuristic things

.. not so good with predicting the future .. credit card .. but that was just accidential . wanted to eliminate money

so the CC just an accident that he created to get around getting money from society

forsees radio but it's only live performances

.. so didn't really see into the future that well

.. doesn't predict cars! or aviations!

but it is interesting that this book was an immediate gigantic best seller

..created a party .. nationalist party

really had a lot of influences ..

best seller exceeded only by uncle tom's cabin & be her

there were detractors so he wrote Equality as a sequal.

shortly after that came out he died of TB.

metaphor of the coach

division of classes

and people on the top are relatively few

horceman of the carriage is hunger

newport , RI .. used to be the summer hojme for all the rich peoole from new york

.. can sttill tour these

ullian west .. great grandchild of the guy who made the real money -- and all the generations after simply live off it

even the people at the top are not happy - constantly afraid of falling off and ending up draggin the coach.

.. back inthe 19th centry .. quite common to have pannicks and depressions

.. so it wasn't uncommon to lose all your money relatively quickly

so even thouse on the top of the coach .. their not reaaly secure ..

so nobody's happy about this situation

but two reasons make people believe that this is the only way

economics as the dismal sicence .. only a few people could have it good .. there was not a sufficient number of good things taht everyone could live weel .. everyone else destined to live in poverty

page 40

= they were not 3xaclly like their brothers and sisters but of a finer clay

.. social darwinism .. if you live in a society where you're sucessfull and others are not ... tempting to say that i earned my way up to the top why should i care about the other person who hasn't .. way to rationalize your position.

very convinient argument .. "not my problem .. i'm here because i worked my way up here"

222

-------

Wed 10/29/08

human natural alturistic

if you take away economic freedom does that impinge on other freedoms .. is he correct that you can have a solidarity econ system and still maintina the other values and freedomes that we cherish?

specifis

choach metaphor - people at top of coach .. allusion to social darwinism

peopple on the top of the choach operate on the dillusion thht somehow they were better

.. they could have inherited all their wealth

some probably did rise by their bootstraps

so when you loook at this .. don't assume that belamy is complete ignoring the possibility that some of what happens to people is their own responsibility

really trying to say .. we tend to overestimate the contribution made by our indivudal responsbility

usually more complex than that .. over who rizes to the top

if a peron's sucessful, might be partially becaase they said they'll work hard .. but might have other advantages as well .. mayy be born more intelligent

couled be born in the best household, bet school, good mentoring, honors program

circomstances that can contribute to scuess and others that can lead to failure

whole process of who's sucessfull and who's not as a complex contribution

sometimes we overemphasize the personal contribution.

page 112. when wwe achieve sccess in life, how much should we credit to ourselves and circomstance

another eleente is previous generations

.. no one alive today had to create railroads or steam engine .. but all of us get some benefit from the transport of good from it

we dont have to invent a computer

so page 112 - 90% of what we enjoy in the current world in terms of econ wellbeing is really the product of previous generations

uses that idea to justify why we should all be sharing that wealth .. shouldn't every human being have the benefit of that 90% .. just like the guy who's sucessfull

page 65-66

thought that the shift from captialism to socialism could be a peaceful transition

tries to get at that idea here

evolution of the current situation in 1887 .. giant corporations and transition to a single monopoly .. US .. not seen as a radical change, but an end result

how could ushc a radical change have taken place, there

"on the contrary"

is that valid?

well we dont seem to really be able to judge of merit of something

people in power don't want to give up that power

no matter how rotten a society is, there's always people with power .. getting the advantage

anytime you want to change society in a radical way, there are probably some people who would be worse off in the new society than they were in the old society

so almost an axium that those peopoe who will be worse off in the new society will be opposed to it .. they might not have enough might to oppose it with force, but not necessarily agree to what's going on .. if they had the power, would try to prevent it from occuring

seems a little bit too easy a solution to something .. what about these people who are really getting the benefits of the old society

tries to justify it a little bit in the coacc metaphor .. people on the top not liking their life either because worried about falling off the top

a lot of welath would be capital .. hard to just leave the couhntry with that

gota be a distasteful process where the govenrment actually nationalises private property

.. hard to imagine that happening whithout a certain resentment from some people belamy seems os intent on describing a transition that was so unanimous that he deosn't address the real -life issues

page 72 - a bit lie a pizzle here.

you have a soety that's predicated on no money .. everone gets euual credit on credit card

.. no money that people can hoard .. therefore there's no wages

real techniical .. in a market society .. not all jobs are created equal .. some require more skills; some jobs are very distasteful .. could increase wages

but you don't have that mechanism here .. so belamy proposes for the kind of jobs that nobody wants to do.

first trhee years in the industrial "army" .. you do all the jobs that you don't want to do

grroup of people 21-24 .. common part of the industrial army

take the job out of the pool and label them too dangerous .. so give the person an honarable mention if you do a too dangerous job

so there's other kinds of rewards .. non-monity way of getting people to do those jobs.

harder job -> work less hours.

effectively equivalent to rasing the wage

.. trying to get away from a wage system but kinda turns into it

but something else screwy - try to correct a shortage of people by reducing the number of hours of work -- but you'd need more workers to work those hours!

total sum of hours is important to get the job done .. # of works and how much they're working

no limit on varience of hours .. you coul have 14 hour jobs and 10 minute jobs

part of what makes society run is that everyone works to their ability -- everbody feels they're on the same team .. common good

again, what's homan nature like .. is this a realistc view oh human nature?

.. is that really an accurate view ?

treatment of women

- well everyone gets the same credit .. so that'a a luaditory objective

but .. he's prisoner of his own culture here .. as hard as he tries to escape his chulture and be an advanced thinkier in terms of gender equality he seems to fail miserably

. ladies always go to be way before me .. when the real philosophical quesion takes place, always after the women have retired

.. also, stereotype of woman and nurturer

edith leet .. seems like what she does is just hang around the house and go shopping

.. seems kinda strange that she's doesn't seem to have a job .. just sorta hangs around the house .. talks about shopping.

also, organization of the industrial army -

140-147

universal educaion 'till 21 - between 21 and 24 - universal service requirement - lowest part of industrial army -- skill-less jobs and jobs that you don't want to d

24 - real industrial army -- learn a tade .. kinda organized like a military army

ranks .. about 9 different levels of rnnk depending on skill and trade .. corresponds to 9 ranks of military

trades are organized into departmetn .. each tdepartment consists of related trade.

work your way up and if you get to the highest level, might get promoted to officer .. and how you're in charge of people -- more of a supervisor .. foreman.

each of the guilds (groups of trades) )associated with the departments is under a major general (to use army terms) .

and then every department (1) are all under some one who worked their way up through the ranks

major generals who are retiring, elect

0 bearous are like cabinents in the US .. they comprise the president's "council" president of the US is actually the genral of the army

.. somebody who's been retired at least five years .. elected not by

president is elected by all the retired ex members of the industrial army

reasoning behind that: to avoid .. if people who elected were still in army .. there might be a temptation to vote for someone who would make their lives better

but if you're not connected with it but familiar with it .. then you wouldn't have any vested interested.

in point of fact .. industrial army is all male.

.. the females are in the army but they have their separate department

.. again, bellamy can't escape from his culture .. got this idea that there are certain female occupations that we can all lump together into a single department.

the only possible general of the army can be a male then

as far as women's contribution to the highest level --> 1 woman out of 10 departments

so again, not quite gender equal here

different kinds of occupations .. teachers, medicine .. are put ih separate orgs .. but they're not elligable to become president of the army

has to be someone who's gone through the industrial army

everybody who was formerly in the army votes for the general of the army

selecting the heads of the guilds - in there the retired members of that guild would select the head of the guild. .. same logic as entire army .. if your retired , you know but you can choose someone w/o vested interest.

so retired doctors and teachers don't get to vote in the guild

not entirely clear what he meant here -

president is elected by all men who are not connected wth the industrial army -- could be people no longer connected -- might have meant not only those people but men that neer were associted -- could mean docotors, profs ... not clear what he really meant

so not really the best predictor / thinking outside the box.

hard to really predict technology

inteesting question : in a planned economy .. where does innovation come from? whee's the motivation for innovtion?

page 128 - gives recognition

could also do government survey .. what kind of gagets do you want .. but we don't really know about these new gadgets .. imagination not that good

.. impossible to think of what you might find really nice

would be new inventions .. based on the person who will use the product firguring out hwat he'd like to have.

.. and we would not have though tof them ordinarily

but if there's somebody who comes up with an idea in this society could have had the oppornity to carry it out ..

and during retirement they have time to invent, too

people might be willing to invent alteristically .. also, can come up just during a day of work.

seesm like everyone is operating in isolation when doing inventions

can invent just through the course of work

- postIt's

but the resources aren't there ...

venture capital <=> guarrentees .. but of course no profit

get an idea .. need some people to help out by giving a portion of their credit .. legwork to a lot of people - not many with deep pockets

in this society have to go to a number of people -- no venture capitalists

what's the motivation to fund something if we would also benefit from it .. can't you take the money from the other guy

independant newspaper - could come into existance even without private eenterprise

- could find subscripbers

elect editor

so you'd go to a bunch of your fellow citizens and see if you can tllk them into providing a certain amount of credit

. there I could see spending some of the credit - because i'm getting something in return

.. a little different from invention .. where everybody can benefit from it .. unless it's alturistic

. are those motives sufficient in human nature?

-------

Fri 10/31/08

- economics is a good dicipline for what constitutes an ideal society -- need to knoo how you provide for everyone's needs

2nd question -- if you can design a way to efficiently porduce - how do you distribute ..

in looking backward, belamy is porposing that the most efficient machine is an economic machine consolidated under a single unit -- us government ..

machine - the labor army

distribution -- distrute to everybody equally

but other societies could be designed differently

so this is the communist control model

other side is pure lazze fair

different models inbetween

in designing an idal society, wha'ts the ideal mix?

controlled - well is it possible to really manage a large economy -- that becomes a real issue .. is that possible

if so, what are the details of managing it .. how does the writer propose to do this?

.. art, newspapers, and books delt with in a society that has the ogvernment as the owner

- newspaper:

.. have paper printed by the government .. cost f that would be taken out of the subscribers

... any problem with that?

problem: higher production then would automatically mean lower cost

too small a minority group means an expensive paper

but you could make the same critque of capitalism

- putting trust in the government - they get the first view of the paper

the central government in this book is protrayed in a very benign way .. objective is to do all the right things, but suppose i decide to start a paper that's all anti-government .. and i bring this to the government

.. relying a lot on the good will of the government .. they won't say outright tthat you can't criticize the goverrment, but they could claim that it's not good for the general society .. or something like that

if you place absolute poer anywhere, it's always a little bit scary .. you have to rely on their good will, good graces .. that's a little scary

inherent distrust of anyone with power

remember what happened in an enemy of the people -- the only printing pess wouldn't print his position

next question is kinda technical :

page 85: julian west and Dr. Leet about saving

what kind of savings rates do you have ..

response, in this society there's no encouragement to save . encouraged to use their entire credit each year

compare to 141: production of the commodities for auction public consumption...

page 175 - discussing the economic advantages of the previous economic systme of 1887 .. he actually criticizes capital a lot

" reat extensinno f the credit system"

capital vs consumer products

issue of a crdit system that makes money available to enterprise

and the whole idea of individual saving and it's function

one of the things .. if everybody were to spend everything they have in consumer good, there's no money to spend in investment

if a society wants to maintina a high standard of living, has to be able to set some money aside for investment in captial, infrastructure ..

what encourages saving -- high returns ... .. demand of money drives up the cost of money .. then people who hav it will be more likely to save it and invest it and get a return on it.

pricing mechanism to create $ for capital

what's the mechanism in this society for creating capital?

could always design a society that you say is so good that it always generates everything that everyone wants and devote to captial formation.

suppose that that's not ture .. suppose scarcities

at some point, we have to curb our appetites in terms of buyhing and using things.

beofre we were talkingaabout captial markets -- natural way to curb apetite -- if you make the dividends high enough, thatmight cause someone to choose to invest ..

but you don't have that now .. what would have to happen?

any credit not spent returns to teh society as a whole .. that presumes that hhe credit is large enough to begin with that people could give it back.

.. but people won't do that ..

seems like there must be a goverrment-imposed savings system .. if i produce 100 and only get 75 credit, then society keeps 25.

.. government will have to ccut down credits as necessary

in a sense , there is some captial formation that may be independant of population, so you could be able to spend less per person there.

there might be an ideal percentage of savings rate .. govenrment could decide that we have to devote 25% to capital formation

if the did spend it all, govenrmetn would have to reduce the credit

suppose that our govenrment said the taxes will have to go up .. have to raise them 25%

things wouldn't be very transparent .. .. it wouldn't be exactly cler why they have to lower the credit .. it would generate certain negative feelings toward the government that could be destabilizing

that doesn't happen if you have a free credit market .. bunch of free choices

but in this society , rather taan being a comiplation of choics, would be a choice by a single person who seems to make the decision arbitrarily

.. that might cause a little strain

another economic issue:

139, 140:

you have a controled economy -- essentially the government has to assign to the factories of the society quotas on how much to produce

how do they make those decisions .. otherwise, you'll either have shortages or surpluses

Dr. Leete talks about how this is doen .. since you already ahve a rpetty good idea of ..

that system wouldn't work ..

elasticity of demand and supply

the quantity demanded by the public is not a fixed number but rather dependant on price

in this dicussion, there is no understanding or appreciation for the idea that there is elasticity of demand .. assumed that we have a natural demand for somthing .. well the discussion of elasticity didn't really occur until two years after this.

JS Mill had done some stuff with elasticity but it was not really well known.

whatever people bought last year, was probably based on the prices for that year .. it doesn't necessarily mean that that was the optimal amount

people could have bought a lot of something because it was so cheap .. and stored it

so the numbers from last year may not represent the optimal number of goods and services for that community.

.. so one of the problems of planned economies is continued shortage and excess

checkoff vs price .. price is determined not by any individual .. naturlaly occurs as a natural combination of individual decision .. in this society, the amount checked off is determined by the government

on what basis would they do that? only thing left to use . how much did it cost to make?

may not be a reasonable way to set prices .. it may be the case that something is so easy to produce, that logic would put too much of that out into society.

how do they decide the optimal amount of something

isn't that a lot of control for the government to decide how much of everything you need?

how does marketing change demand?

page 150-155 - justice sysystem:

no lawyers -

no posession of property - eliminates a lot of law right there

criminal justice -

small number of crimes occur -- and when they do not really considered crimes .. they they do .. considered something crazy about the person.

how is the trail carried out?

no lawyers .. no you defend yourself -- judgs .. no degree just wise people of the community

lower forms of government -- no state government .. all the states have been abolished

.. but there are local governmetns

no lawyers, no trail by jury, and pretty much central administration -

-- designed a society with no mitigations for tyranny of majority!

eduction - compulsory up to the age of 21 - benefits yourself and more intereting to your neighbor

.. nice educated people surroundings

education is important because most peope are going to be parents .. and that contriburres to being good parents

interesting because in oursociety we don't give any formal training