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