Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman believes that the only way to limit coercion and allow people to "cooperate together voluntarily" is through the free market. He believes that the government should be limited in what it should "own" but that private property is so "central to freedom". Each individual should own their own property and no one should allow the government decide what to do with the money or property that is not theirs. private property according to Friedman is not theft. Each person has "knowledge" to decide what they want to do with their property.

No one manages something well that does not belong to you. For example, if you find $100 on the floor, it is more likely you will spend it faster and on unnecessary things than if you had to work for those $100 because they were not yours in the first place so it doesn't matter what you do with them.

I read an article on Fox News.com that talks about a 'worm' known as the "Code Red" that affected many companies in 2001. Some companies and buildings were forced to shut down all web sites to protect from the attack. What would Friedman think about this? I think Friedman would say that the Internet should be privatized and that the government should have no say in what happens to these sites. The problem is that the Internet is widely used and companies profit out of the Internet. The Internet has made it more difficult for the government to take control; for example in the collection of taxes. The Internet will cause a reduction in the role the government plays which is good according to Friedman. Plus, everyone benefits from the Internet. Companies and businesses provide and sell Antivirus to protect from any attacks at a cost which benefits their profits.

Each person puts their own knowledge and what they know on the web and of course get credit for their work. Jobs, entertainment, and other resources are available through the Internet which allows us the freedom to make use of it. Yes the attacks harm our devises yet each individual should protect what is theirs because that which is yours you protect and that which is not yours you care less.

The CTA and Marx

The CTA has been one of the most beneficial systems to people in the US. Everyone uses the bus or train to go where they want at an economical price. As time passes there are new regulations the government has been imposing on the CTA. Recently in the news we have seen many people protesting and arguing with the changes that have occurred with the CTA. Would Marx agree with the fact that we are paying for better service or just for the fuel the CTA consumes?

As of February 7, 2010, there has been a cut of express busses and the regular busses are running less frequently. This change has caused many of us frustration. They have been increasing the CTA fare at a steady pace, but now they have completely deleted some transportation that everyone needs.

Victoria Kaczmarek, from Lane Tech High school, writes in the Chicago Tribune about how the CTA should provide better “quality service”. She believes that she should not be paying for being late to her school because of the bus. I myself was a student at Lane Tech and yes the school has a strict policy when you’re late. Every minute counts and if the bus takes long or doesn’t come on the time expected you would be late which causes some teachers to lower your grade depending on how many times you are tardy. This on the other hand is not the governments fault, but the government should consider that for some people in Chicago this is the only method of transportation available for them and with this weather it is bad for our health. Jerome C. Malon argues that some of us complain of how much we are paying. He says that we pay just the right amount because even the most “fuel-efficient” car will spend $2.75 on gas from O’Hare airport to 95^th street.

Here we are debating on how much we pay and what we get in return but that is why many of the CTA drivers protest to get higher income as well they feel like their labor is not getting paid. According to Marx this is how it is supposed to be. The drivers should only be paid for the hours driven not for the service. Marx would argue that we are paying for the time. If you go walking to wherever we go we will pay more because we are sacrificing time. “Labor is our life activity” according to Marx and if we have to wake up earlier or wait longer that’s just what we are supposed to do. Same with the drivers, they may get a raise but they will never get paid for their labor.

Marx would view the knew changes as a good thing because since many of us have no other choice but to ride the CTA, there would be in increase in production yet there would be less wages being paid.

URL http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-vp-0215letters-20100210,0,5423330.story

John Locke on Property

John Locke views property as the “natural right derived from labor”. Since one owns our own body then one owns our own labor. Does this mean that if we instill our labor into another person than that person is now our property?
An article was printed in the Chicago Tribune, about slavery and on how people to this day still find it humanly right to own and dispose of people as they wish. The article talks about an incident in West Palm Beach, Florida, where there was human trafficking going on in a “small-frame house” as they called it. They consisted of young women who were forced into being a sex slave. One victim says that she was smuggled into the US when she was 14, and was beaten up by her husband regularly to keep her “in line”.
This type of activity is illegal but, in many minority countries it is another different idea. For example in Mexico they use the word “machismo” meaning when there is a superiority of males over females. Many women are brought up with this idea that they belong to their husband and that anything their husband tells her she has to abide by. I don’t think it’s the owning of a person that makes it so difficult but the right to what you can do with the property that makes it morally wrong.
This article brings a conflict between what is right and what people think is right. I think Locke would say that even though a man is in charge and provides everything for the women, they have no right to own her. On the contrary, if a woman gives birth to a baby and sells the baby which comes from her own body, then shouldn’t that be ok according to Locke? In my opinion, I don’t think Locke agrees to the owning of people because he argues that “no man has a right to the body of anyone else because one owns our own body”. No one has the right to own anyone else.

Here is a link to the full story... http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/fl-sex-house-20100128,0,6067000.story

Avatar on Aristotle

As heard in the Chicago Sun times and other news papers, Avatar, a Science-fiction fantasy film, has become one of the favorites in entertainment. James Cameron, director of the film and also director of Titanic, waited many years to film this production because he needed the right technology to come forth with his idea. It took about four years to actually finish his idea and thus presenting us with the movie: Avatar. Besides taking him so many years to produce it was also a costly production of about $300,000. Avatar is a film about two different worlds and the aims to protect their “home”. It brings up the issue of anti-war and helps connect humans to each other.
The issue here is if it was worth spending so much time and money to produce such a film? Roger Ebert, journalists, comments that “Once again, Cameron has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film”. This film has not only brought entertainment but also has shared the opportunity to provide us with many interesting ideas of what we think of the world and each other. Avatar starts off with an “alien” who is unable to walk. The alien is sent to “a human outpost” on Pandora where he is to achieve the “key”, in this case it’s like a mineral, to save earth’s energy crisis. They create avatars in order for them not to die. It’s a complicated description because there might be many interpretations but it mainly focuses on human race and this extraordinary life of the world.
Aristotle argues that the world should focus on liberality and that private property should be private but have its use be common. This might relate to the film in the sense that private property does not only focus on material things but also on the things in our world. Aristotle would agree with the film because it brings the idea that earth should not be fighting with the environment. Avatar teaches about Human race; these might not be real humans but they are considered to be just like anyone else. We as humans have the tendency to take whatever we feel like it without asking. This is why Aristotle argues that property should be private with some sense of common use.
Privacy gives a sense of individuality. For example war is a major impact in our lives; many go fight to protect us. Aristotle’s argument might lead into the thought that it does not always have to be private property that’s owned but also the ideas. These soldiers think about others and it does not necessarily mean that they must own something in order to be generous and help protect our country. We can see that Cameron came up with many ideas that took him a long time and if someone were to steal his credit then what is the point of spending all that money but yet he shared his idea with everyone.
Even though many would argue that Aristotle’s point of view is wrong we all have a sense to support it. That is plagiarism. Plagiarism is a big controversial topic. We can’t just “steal” from each other but we have to borrow and give credit. We can use ideas from others but they still have an owner and that is what Aristotle is trying to enforce in us. Avatar seems to be just one example of how humanity is a whole no matter the race or the property owned. We each have a sense of generosity within us that helps each provide with what one is capable of without it being taken from us.