Blog 7

He believes that American is affluent in the society after World War 2. He believes poverty shouldn't be an issue. I think American is affluent because we have plenty of resources and lots of the society is in the middle class. It could be more affluent. There could be less people in poverty based on what we have as a country. More programs could be made in order to give back to people in need. The signs of affluence are the people in the high end of America that could give back to the people. They could end poverty in America if they chose to share their riches that way. The results of the affluence in America is people still in poverty because they can't afford to get out and we don't give them the opportunity to live better. If we gave parents a better life, then the children could also have a better life.

I don't think it is the government's place to find people jobs. I think if you're not lazy you can go out and find a job. It might not be amazing but you can get a job. The government does help finding jobs because of unemployment offices and such, which is good for the community. But the whole purpose of government is not to find people jobs. that's what has made out society lazy is thinking someone else is going to do something for them. For the second question I do think yes. If for some reason your job just doesn't need you anymore and your a good worker I do think it is a good idea to help you get placed somewhere else.if your job lays you off because they can't afford to pay you, you have a advantage over the lazy people who don't get up and find a job. Reich didn't say anything about governments giving out jobs but about the conditions of the workforce and how jobs are declining in some areas and increasing in some areas.

Blog 6

The economic condition of the proletariat is better than the economic condition of the Bourgeoise. Everything runs off the people from the proletariat. The people from bourgeoise market over produce stuff so that leaves to chaos and ruin. The more you produce and not sell the worse your market gets. The people from proletariat Buourgeoise need help from proletariat because they are slaved into working for the bourgeoise. The economic conditions for both fluctuate.The proletarians have nothing of their own, they want to destroy the other systems of production.

It affects national identity because of trade and how much is produced. Bourgeoise produce lots of things at once and proletariat is trying to keep up. Everything in a nation revolves around each other. Supply and demand is a big thing also.

Communism is trying to bring the two back together and have one over the other. They want the proletariat to have more power.The proletariat are trying to overthrow the Bourgeoise becasue they are unfit to rule. Communism is going to help this.

I don't think Bill Gates activity will change much because some poor people don't even have access to the internet so how would they even find his source. If it is also not well known it won't be easy to find. If he gives away money freely to people, people then become greedy. His solution sounds good but in reality the poor will be poor, and the rich will be rich. It all goes to show how you spend and save money.

Aristotle

Aristotle was all about government so I think he would have liked seeing the Declaration of Independence being signed. He wasn't about democracy but he liked where people came together to make sets of rules to make common people happy. He liked the thought of structure.

The elements of society in the painting are people coming together in a group to create a government. People were in agreement and people signed the paper. There was a leader over them all, and that's how government works today. There is a President still over everyone and everyone in the government is common people elected.

Aristotle would have said that our government was more of an oligarchy because in the time the wealthy people were the ones who got to be rulers. Still today people with more money get more power. Poor people don't usually get into government because people tend to think that poor people have less education and that they cannot rule our country. We still get a say in the government and that is why he would classify us as an oligarchy.

They were all people who demonstrated great leadership for their colonies. People from all the colonies got to agree or disagree with the conference. They all got to sign the Declaration of Independence because they showed their characteristics as great in society. They were probably all wealthy people too.

Tocqueville believes Democracy is a good way to run our country. He thinks France failed at it because the aspects they focused on were not right. He says that we "arise from a very general idea men have conceived of God, of his relations with the human race, of the nature of their souls, and of their duties towards those like them". That's why our government works for the people here.

Martin Luther King v. Thoreau

These two pieces and people are similar in many ways. Martin Luther King was all about civil rights and defying the laws that he didn't think was right. He fought for what he thought was right even when the people in the mid-1900s thought he was crazy. Martin Luther King died fighting for what he believed. His thoughts changed the World. I don't know if Martin Luther King could have read Thoreau's writing or not. Thoreau was for this type of fighting. He told what he thought was right or wrong. Thoreau believed in a government that was better and people that would actually run it and not be foolish. He believed you should do what you deemed right instead of what the government saw as right. He knew exactly what he was talking about. Martin Luther King knew what he was talking about too. 

Blog 3

The values that Thoreau describes is that the government should not be too powerful. The government should be for the people and with the people. He also states that the majority overrides in government and some people don't get their choice. This is overall correct because even if you have a say, if everyone else doesn't agree with it than it is said for nothing.  He says government rules by majority and not justice. If it was ruled by Justice than it wouldn't be based on certain people's decisions. Thoreau was talking about how if you don't follow what the government says to do your wrong. But he says men should stand up against their government. If they deem something as wrong stand up for it no matter what. In his time there was slavery. Now slavery is abolished but we still have instances of sex trade and bad things happening around the world. His time and our time is not much different at all, because majority still overrides singles and the government is still "powerful."

I think the reason Thoreau thought all this is because America thought they were powerful enough to just take whatever they wanted. The Mexican War was fought between the US and Mexico because we wanted to expand west and take over Texas. The whigs and the Democrats were against each other. The Democrats favored conflict and the whigs didn't. Polk had a lot of control in this time and after the War they accused him of illegally starting  a war. Thoreau was right about how much power the government had over the people in this time period. Polk was all about war because he wanted what he thought was ours.

Blog 2

The type of government Rousseau would have wanted is unbelievable. I believe this because he thinks government is corrupt. He says that naturally men are good and the laws and things make men bad. We were corrupted by the acts of civilization. If we lived by nature we would be independent and there would be less crime. Rousseau believed in complete power of nature and nothing else. He wanted compassion on everyone and that everyone be treated equal. The government of the type he would want exists in our times. Everyone is evil because of the laws.

The end of independence does mean rebellion and terrible acts. End of independence would be breaking the people apart. Independence is what we have in America and yes without it there would be many deaths and we would have limited freedoms. If we as a country wasn't independent someone else would be a ruler of the country, we would be connected with somewhere else. I don't think Jefferson thought of it this way,he thought of it as a way to solve the problems we had. Machiavelli's advice was bad and would have caused more problems than anything. He was cunning. Machiavelli's way of thinking would have been bad for the United States.

Lao tzu vs. Machievelli

The difference between Machiovelli and Lao tzu was that Machiovelli was more for philosophy and science and that’s how he ran his nation. He made a book “The Art of War” and it was all the science on military. To keep all control he was very dishonest. I disagree with this type of leadership. I feel like you need to be nice and not decieving to your people. Lao Tzu may not have actually been real and that is something cool I learned from my research. He came up with Chinese Taoism meaning that  he believed in the simple way of living. He knew the difference between good and evil. If I had to choose one of them to be my leader I would have to pick Lao Tzu. He is all about nature and Machievilli is about doing evil to get what he wants.