Moved from D1 forum

[FireIceTalon]

Are you sure? I suspect some of my tax goes toward someones boondoggle (e.g. General Electric paid negative taxes last year...)

Well my taxes don't go to the same place that yours do, but I absolutely see your point. Big businesses getting huge tax breaks to the point of absurdity like that it ridiculous, but it's not like all or even most of your taxes go that way. The plural of anecdote etc....

I was more thinking of the struggling little guy. I'll pay a little extra so he can have a little of what he needs to survive. I'm happy to pay more in taxes so kids can have a better education, public water is safe and clean, and poor people in my little socialist country can have the luxury of seeing a doctor when they need to (as opposed to when they can afford to).

You damn Marxist, how dare you want those things!

---

As promised, here is my research paper on John Rawls and his theory of "Justice As Fairness". For this paper, we were required to pick a political thinker we covered in the course, discuss one or two of his theories, and then apply them to modern society. Criticize (or less likely, compliment) if you will, I already received an A on the paper and an A in the class as I mentioned previously. A little over 10 pages (length requirement was 7-10 pages). Have at it. *Edit* the paper itself has many paragraphs and is double spaced but not sure how to format it exactly the way it was, but this is close enough I guess minus the double spacing/indents.

John Rawls' (1921-2002) 1958 article, Justice As Fairness, underscores the traditional and enduring struggle seen in any political system and society: the reconciliation of freedom versus equality. It is this idea which I will examine. Following this, I will apply his theories and their relevance to modern American society on three separate but related realms: politics, economics, and social/cultural structures, that ostensibly influence our culture and how we view society. Some key institutionalized issues we currently face in each of these areas serving as justification will be provided.

According to Rawls, it is important we first establish that justice and fairness are not the same thing (McQuitty 194). Justice is a comprehensive system of socially constructed virtues and practices we have to keep civil society intact, while fairness refers to a context of equity which may or may not be just. There is a profound relationship between justice and fairness for Rawls, however: fairness is one of the intrinsic elements found within justice itself. Rawl's theory is composed of the following two tenets: 1. Each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. 2. Inequalities are only permissible if they benefit all of society and that those with the greatest disadvantage will still benefit; offices and open positions must be open to all under fair and equal opportunity (DeLue 250). Observing these principles, one might be led to believe that Rawls was advocating a view similar to that of Marx, but there are paramount differences to consider. First, Rawls' idea is applied in a more comprehensive and overlapping context, while that of Marx is seen primarily from an economic determinist point of view. But perhaps more importantly, Rawls accepted inequalities so long as the means for a fair chance of success are equal – equality of opportunity rather than outcome. In contrast to this, Marx manifested complete equality as the end result. For Rawls, all things practiced must be equal before a departure from the original position of equal liberty can take place, and there must be legitimate justification for it. If such a greater liberty can be achieved without losses or creating contentious circumstances, then it should be done, so long as they are compatible and efficient with the practice which defines them (McQuitty 196). In short, all people must be granted justice which protects basic civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. Let us use the game of chess as a symbolic representation to further clarify what Rawls' second tenet means. When we play chess, we do not object to the fact that all the pieces move differently, and that some are more powerful than others. What can be protested, is the caliber of player that wields them. Obviously, an amateur is no match for a Grandmaster. For this reason, a higher caliber player may give “odds” to a lesser player, such as removing a piece or two from the board, or remove minutes from his clock at the start of the game should it be a timed one. This inequality benefits the weaker player to create a more fair playing field, just as the second tenet in Rawls' theory applies to social and economic inequalities in society. Although this idea clearly illustrates what justice is for Rawls, we still must ask: how are these principles to be carried out when there are so many different interests and values that must be accounted for? This is especially true in a highly multicultural nation like the United States, which has a less homogenous society than say, Japan. To answer this question, we must first examine another important idea that Rawls had in his theory of justice, “the Veil of Ignorance.”

“The Veil of Ignorance” introduces the idea of a hypothetical society where people lack a knowledge of self: we do not know our individual talents, the social class we were born into, how much wealth or resources we have access to, or other extrinsic variables. We do however, still have knowledge about our society, its values, culture, laws, and so forth. By adhering to the veil, we cannot create policy, govern, or take measures that pursue only our personal interests, because we simply do not know which principles of justice will benefit us from the lack of personal knowledge that we all have. In other words, we may take action to improve our position in some manner, but without knowing our place in society this is a great risk: for example, what happens if you try to pass legislation that benefits yourself, only to have it backfire because you are on a lower rung in society than you had presumed? The risk is most likely too great, with only a small potential for reward. The argument of course, is that we do know our personal attributes and our background, so the veil theory cannot be put into practice for Rawls' opponents. But if we assumed it to be reality, would putting this theory into practice not be just, and beneficial to society? I personally believe it would be so, for we would have to forgo much of our selfishness in exchange for doing what is right, or just. This would create a more fair playing field between those with great power and wealth, and those on the lower rungs of society. Putting Rawls' idea into practice is difficult, because we know which principles of justice will benefit us and which ones will not. And with people naturally pursuing their own interests first, this further compounds the issue of theory versus practicality. We could paraphrase this idea as “prepare for the worst, hope for the best.” Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine this philosophy not improving the world around us, and thus our lives (the majority at least), if his theory did indeed become the core element of modern civil society in a universal context. For this reason, it deserves further study and consideration.

Rawls' theory is applicable in virtually any modern society today, but perhaps no other nation underscores the idea of justice as fairness, or freedom versus equality, better than the United States. Of all the advanced democratic regimes in the world, none is more paradoxical, or as ethnically and socially diverse. The paradigm of American politics, compounded by the many different cultural values, social classes and ethnic groups, creates a vast and complicated structure within our society regarding various issues and propositions. By applying Rawls' idea of justice as fairness to some of these affairs, we can obtain a better understanding of their fundamental and dynamically historical - yet perpetuating context; on a political, economical, and social level. I will begin in the political realm, by examining some of the common but critical issues and questions that we face today, in the American political system.

One of the hottest topics we see today in American politics is the division of elitism versus populism. Should the will of the common citizen rule over that of the most educated or well off? There are considerable implications on both ends of the spectrum and everything in between. Those who support elitism claim that the better educated know what is best for society and understand the pitfalls and complexities in governing. The drawback of course, is that many populists have a preconception of these individuals as being selfish and out of touch with the needs of the common citizen. Americans have great pride in their state but little trust in it, which is one of the foundations from where this divisive issue comes from (O'Neil 76). This has led to a cultural misconception that “big government” is bad; though it is rather “big business” that is more detrimental and threatening to our civil liberties since there is no constitutional amendment that protects us from their influence. Some people believe that many politicians use populism as a way of manipulation by campaigning for the will of the people but creating or bending policy which favors them or a small group of people. This is a legitimate concern of course, is it really fair and just for this to happen? In most nations, the answer would be no. But it is well known that America has a weak political culture: it participates far less in political affairs, is behind in education compared to its peers in other industrialized nations, and does not understand the political parties and their platforms as well as European citizens do with their system; a form of self-imposed tutelage. The debate will likely rage on and become further complicated by other arising political issues.

Our electoral system, which has become highly contentious in recent years (especially in light of the 2000 election), is closely related to the idea of elitism vs. populism. Should Americans be allowed a system of direct democracy rather than representative democracy? This is a dynamic question because it presents a catch 22 situation: one of tutelage, and another of false consciousness, in the case of the American population. Americans are easily swayed by social discourse, yet often lack the knowledge required to directly participate effectively in politics that is in their best interest. It also contributes to lower voter turnout in American elections compared to other modernized democracies - many feel their vote may not count on the premise that should a candidate win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, and thus the election, is often considered unfair or unjust, because it goes against the will of the people (O'Neil 94).

An equally disputatious, but relatively more clear issue, is that of the two party system itself. Many Americans, with some justice, have come to believe the two party system is no longer working for them and want reform. This is due in large part because they feel both parties are out of touch with the needs of the poor and working class, and that both are in the back pockets of wealthy bankers and CEO's (especially in light of their actions responding to the 2008 financial crisis). Indeed, can two parties possibly represent, on a fair and just level, the will and needs of 310 million people? It is difficult to believe so, for the United States is far less homogenous than most other democracies.

As one can imagine, to effectively allocate two platforms as the choices for governing a nation that has so many different cultures and values is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many citizens believe both parties, despite their different values, are much more similar than we may be led to believe; even with the constant finger pointing and public scrutiny that both use against one another. Should this be the case, one could make the argument of this system not being fair and just in the context of Rawls' theory, and that we are a democracy only by name and not necessarily in practice. Traditionally speaking, liberals and conservatives have very different values, but it becomes more difficult to prove that we have a legitimate choice in our political system, when we see little or no change under the watch of either party. Yet both parties continue to dominate the political arena and there seems little chance for alternative parties to be competitive. The reasons are many, including financing and the paradoxical reality that while many Americans want change, they also fear its unpredictable nature. Would Americans be better served under a parliamentary system, where proportional representation that allows more parties to be involved in legislation (as opposed to single member districts, seen in our current system), than under our more stable but less efficient presidential system? Most Americans are not yet willing to embrace or even consider such a dramatic change, even if they feel the two party system is no longer fair and just. The fact both parties have dominated American politics for nearly the last 150 years is evidence of this (O'Neil 96). Our political system, values, culture, and way of life are so entrenched in traditional legitimacy, it is difficult for changes (especially substantial ones) to take place, even if we want or need them to. The two party paradigm could also be a probable culprit of lower voter turnout in American elections.

One last political issue I would like to address is that of lobbying, and the power generated by wealth that sees the needs of the rich met before those of the common citizens. Did Rawls condone the ability of politicians to be “bought?” Although he never directly answered this question, his theory implies that he would be against it, and rightfully so. When money drives politics and policy, this has the danger of turning a democracy into an oligarchy, and some would contend it is already such. Yet this is exactly what is taking place in America today. Should those who have the ability to pay and thus bribe policy makers have any more power or access to legislation than those who can only hope to see their needs met by voting in a representative democratic system, with no guarantee of victory? This unfair symbiosis of politicians and private interest groups is clearly in violation of both tenets in Rawls' theory, and is the source for much of the political vitiation that has occurred in Washington over the last few decades. Furthermore, it creates a fallacy that we have a transparent political system that is fair and just, that all eligible citizens have a reasonable amount of autonomy in politics, and that we have a legitimate choice in spite of both parties being “funded” by wealthy capitalists and special interest groups to see their interests mutually obtained at the expense of common citizens. Even looking past this, the fairness and justice of the American political system is, at best, questionable, with its ambiguous future. I will now examine Rawls' idea in an economical context, with a critique of American capitalism.

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1990 and the Cold War ended, the western world thought communism had ended for good, and that capitalism was victorious. Not so fast. Some 21 years later, we are in the midst of the second worst economic disaster in American history, a huge gap between the rich and the poor that is rapidly widening, a lack of jobs due to outsourcing, and some 35 million citizens living in poverty in America. The top 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million citizens combined. One can almost hear Marx saying “told you so” from the grave. Indeed, the economic crisis of 2008 has invigorated an already strong backlash against capitalism from the Reagan era, that has made it difficult for its proponents to defend, much less actually justify, as being a fair and legitimate economic system. Applying Rawls' theory to capitalism, we can discover several elements that are intrinsic to just how unjust and unfair of a system it is. The first problem is the very goal of what it seeks to achieve: to create competition in a free-market (this term should be used sparingly, as the existence of a genuinely free market is a myth) system that ironically defeats itself once a monopoly is created. Can a system that seeks to create competition but defeats its very purpose by eliminating competition be considered fair and just? It is a paradoxical idea at best, a complete failure at worst. Another problem with capitalism is that it is a system where one is required to take considerable risks in order to succeed. If one has a lot of resources to fall back on, this is a relatively easy thing to do. But for those who lack resources, this is at the very least unreasonable, and in some cases, impossible. Remember, Rawls' second tenet states that inequalities are acceptable only if there is an equal playing field, and this is certainly not the case here. Capitalism is a system based on the ideology of Social Darwinism, where only the strongest survive. All other problems aside, this alone is really enough to demonstrate that capitalism is not the fair and just system it has been made out to be. It is a morally bankrupt system that puts profits, consumerism, and materialism above social needs, merit and integrity.

Also worth noting is the paradigm of the capitalistic and materialistic society, and how they both feed one another to create a vicious cycle that is able to perpetually manifest itself: As we gain more capital and wealth, we in turn want more material things. This urges us to take measures to increase our capital so we can obtain these goods. Some of these measures include exploitation, lowering of wages, outsourcing, the deskilling of work (to make work easier so wages can be lowered), and dehumanizing workers so they are a product of their own labor that they do not receive any benefit from. There is nothing fair or just about such a system, in the context of Rawls' theory or otherwise.

Capitalism has brought us many of the products we greatly desire, and in some ways, the so-called free market system has also created jobs (especially in the area of technology) to help firms bring these products and services to society and build our economy. But without strong regulation, safety nets for the disadvantaged, and moral guidelines it can turn into “socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else”, and this is indeed far from being fair and just on any level. Trickle down economics simply does not work (or has not yet occurred); this is proven by the fact the gap between the wealthy and the poor is widening. Yet this is what has manifested in America during the last 30 years or so, and it was compounded by a system of “corporate welfare” upheld by the symbiosis of politicians and special interest groups, as I explained earlier. The United States may boast being the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest economy, but it also has the largest economic inequality and disparity in social class compared to any other democracy (O'Neil 76). Some try to argue that capitalism is necessary to satisfy our natural characteristic of greed, and to suppress it is either wrong or unrealistic. This is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. If we are truly greedy by nature, why would we adopt a system that will only perpetuate it, when we should seek to control it?

In short, capitalism manifests its own demise through a multitude of paradoxical elements, as Marx observed. In the context of Rawls' theory, such a system that benefits only a certain group of citizens cannot be considered fair and just except for those who benefit from it, because of the inequality of resources and wealth among the various social classes. If we put on the veil of ignorance, would we be willing to submit to a laissez-faire market not knowing which rung of the social hierarchical ladder we sat on? Very unlikely. Finally, I would like to examine a few paradoxical social/cultural values and ideas in American society, and their interrelationship with the American political and economic system.

Perhaps the most important cultural paradox of our society is The American Dream itself, based on the Horatio Alger Myth. It implies that everyone can achieve success through hard work and perseverance (Charon 28). This is simply not true, for while there have been some who have achieved success, there have been just as many or more who have not. Did the citizens who did not see the Dream fail because they lacked the drive or ambition required to achieve it? The social class you are born into will greatly determine both your ability to pursue the Dream, and ultimately, your quality of life. The contradicting aspect of this is that many Americans, regardless of their class, think they can go from being poor to rich just by working hard. They completely ignore invisible structures beyond their control, both social and economic, that make this mission of achieving the Dream difficult or even impossible. How many of us know at least one person that works hard their whole life and struggles to make ends meet, and puts the blame on themselves by saying “maybe I just need to work harder” (though such people often have two jobs and work nights)? This stems from a cultural flaw that is deeply embedded in our society: If one claims responsibility for success, one must also do the same for failure (Charon 34). The American Dream creates an paradigm of illusion: we like to blame the individual rather than economic forces, environmental limitations, and political structures that attribute to being much greater factors in determining our success than individual merit (Charon 36), though we use merit as a shield to hide these features so those at the bottom, usually, cannot achieve upward mobility. It is further compounded by the fact that capitalism will see to it that some businesses, and thus some individuals must, and will, fail. Then, we blame these individuals by labeling them as unmotivated, lazy or not smart enough. Of course, there are also race, gender, and class elements in the structures of society that shape our values and perceptions toward certain types of people as well, that hold precedence over individual character and merit. Yet we can use character and merit, which we proclaim to hold in high value, to our advantage by excluding individuals that we may dislike from exercising their rights. This destructive method allows for a system of unfair practices to be put into place, as they manifest social problems such as racism, gender inequality, and class warfare; even if they cannot be done legally. An example of this would be prospects of black people getting a call back after a job interview compared to those of whites. Studies show that blacks without a criminal record still have a lower probability of getting a call back (14%), compared to whites with a criminal record (17%) and without a criminal record (34%), an astounding statistic (Charon 359). This problem is a result of laissez-faire racism (as opposed to traditional Jim Crowe racism), a contour of our society today.

Another contradictory element of American society is the fact we despise high taxes and a welfare state, yet when it comes time for us to open our checkbooks to pay for our childrens education or when that doctor bill comes in the mail, we wish these social services were subsidized. We dislike how the government uses our tax dollars to fund services for those who are less well off than we are, but there is little talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy – the very same individuals who exploit us through our capitalistic system! We are also a nation of patriots and dislike terrorists, yet we condone counter terrorism in the name of imperialism and Manifest Destiny – something we fought against England in the American Revolution. Is America not just as guilty of terrorism as any other nation seeking to carry out a specific political agenda? I could list many more contradictions entrenched in our society, but for the sake of space limitations, where does Rawls' theory of justice as fairness stand in all of this? I have detailed how our political and economic systems have shaped our cultural values within American society. Given the above circumstances, is our society fair and just in the context of Rawls' philosophy? I would have to conclude in the negative. Perhaps this is simply a matter of perspective, and I will leave it to the reader of this paper to decide. But I would ask the reader to first put on the veil of ignorance, and follow up with this question afterward: would it be fair and just to keep society the way it is? Or must we make paramount changes in our personal values, our political structure, and our economic system? Rawls forces us to critically examine our civil society in a different light; especially on issues we take for granted or even thought of as being part of our past but still existing in different forms, such as racism and class disparity. The veil theory will allow us to take the first critical step into achieving a fair and just society, in our political, economic, and cultural realms for everyone, as Rawls' theory envisions.

[DeeBye]

Because not everyone is equal. Some people are faster, some people are smarter.

I just had an image of a "Marxist" symphony orchestra -- anyone can participate because everyone is equal.

Have you ever watched 2081? It's a very short film based on Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. In this dystopian future, everyone is equal. Strong people have to wear weights, smart people have to wear earpieces that broadcast static to interfere with thought, and attractive people wear masks. Everyone is equal, and it is enforced by law.

[DeeBye]

You damn Marxist, how dare you want those things!
As promised, here is my research paper on John Rawls and his theory of "Justice As Fairness".

That's a whole lot of words.

Here's what I did last weekend. I wanted some bacon. I did not go to my local grocery store to buy my bacon. My local grocery store has cheap bacon, but the bacon that they sell also tastes like crap. It's like a dried shoestring.

I bought my bacon at a local farmer's market from a very fat and happy Amish man. Protip: buy your meat from a fat and happy Amish man. That bacon was the best bacon I have ever eaten.

Here is what I am getting at: I don't need laws and regulations and radical changes in government to tell me to buy my bacon from a happy fat Amish man. His bacon is great, and my money stays in my local community.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea the paper is long, but truth be told, I had a hard time keeping it to only 10 pages. I would have gone well over the limit, but this particular professor is very strict about what he is looking for, so I had to leave out a bunch of things I would have like to discuss. I enjoy writing about this stuff, afterall its why Im a poli sci major! I cannot see myself doing anything else but something related to politics, be it writing about contemporary affairs, political theory, analyzing data and patterns related to specific political and economic systems or even being directly involved in politics itself (though this is unlikely since I love politics but generally dislike politicians, go figure).

I see what you are getting at with the bacon. You want to have a choice. If I could wave my magic wand and turn the entire world into a Marxist society, have no fear, you would still have a choice on which bacon to buy, and just about everything else

I think at the end of the day my ultiimate point on Marxism is that it is not the evil system it is made out to be, nor are Marxist junkies like myself the evil, controlling demons we are made out to be. Truth be told, in terms of practicality, Im probably more Rawlsian than Marxist, and I think Rawls' theory is more relevant to society now overall. From a moral standpoint though, what Marx seek to achieve was nothing short of brilliant and ultimately I think the intentions behind his theories are for the good of civil society. The man was a genius and his theories, practical or not, have a lot of truth to them. And it is most unfortunate that a few power hungry douche bags like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jon-Il have stigmatized his ideas. I guess I should have made it more clear in the beginning that I agree with Marx more on his critques of capitalism rather than I do on his advocation of communism (which because he never made a blueprint for it, and we have never seen put into practice in his theoretical context thus it is difficult for me to have a valid opinion on it). But I happen to be an altruist, which probably means im in the minority, but I think if we all were this way, humanity would be much better off. And I dont buy that we cant be this way because its not in our nature to be so. We can be this way, we just choose not to be. At least thats how I see it. If this is not possible, why so?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Have you ever watched 2081? It's a very short film based on Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.

Read the story, haven't seen the film. Doesn't appear to be available from NetFlix. I'll not pay 1/3 of my NetFlix fee which gives me 1 CD at a time (about 6-8 a month) and unlimited streaming to watch one film. Lousy damned capitalists at YouTube. :^)

Here's what I did last weekend. I wanted some bacon. I did not go to my local grocery store to buy my bacon. My local grocery store has cheap bacon, but the bacon that they sell also tastes like crap. It's like a dried shoestring.

I bought my bacon at a local farmer's market from a very fat and happy Amish man. Protip: buy your meat from a fat and happy Amish man. That bacon was the best bacon I have ever eaten.

Here is what I am getting at: I don't need laws and regulations and radical changes in government to tell me to buy my bacon from a happy fat Amish man. His bacon is great, and my money stays in my local community.

That is beautiful. It brought tears to my eyes; sniff, sniff; (or maybe that's the cilantro Sue's cutting up for her birthday treat lunch at work tomorrow).

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

As promised, here is my research paper on John Rawls and his theory of "Justice As Fairness". For this paper, we were required to pick a political thinker we covered in the course, discuss one or two of his theories, and then apply them to modern society. Criticize (or less likely, compliment) if you will, I already received an A on the paper and an A in the class as I mentioned previously. A little over 10 pages (length requirement was 7-10 pages). Have at it.

Ok. First off, fix your formatting. It might have been fine when you handed it in as a paper, but it looks like donkey apples when it's served as straight from the can copypasta in a forum.

I would still say the same thing if you were libertardian. If you claim you want to be a superawesomeIroxxor-your-xbawxor writer, you should care about communicating clearly. Your formatting does not currently reflect that.

Second, if you did have an interesting idea it's buried under a huge mound of copypasta. I'm kind of disturbed actually, that you were asked to supply a 7-10 page paper implying quantity=quality. This is high school poli-sci\history 101 stuff at best. At worst it resembles a make work project. If a uni\college class does this at an advanced class, I'd re-consider my tuition.

TL, DR:

-Fix your formatting if you want anyone to read that in a forum.

-If you want to be a good writer, concentrate on communicating clearly, and concisely. Be a laser, not a scattergun. Some perfessors who just wants you to parrot their bias may not give you an A, but in the long run you'll be a better writer.

-2 second soundbites are idiotic, but 2 gajillion words does not automagically = brilliant opus. Cut the puffery flowery weasely fillers. Be ruthless. Because your audience will be. If they don't like or care, they won't give you a grade. They'll just check out.


TL,DR part 2, the Evil Empire Strikes Back!



I give credit to Marx for trying to spread kommie-ism by humour, while Lenin tried it with popular musical invasion. Marx along with his brothers (Chico, probably a Cuban) went as far as getting numerous Hollywood films and a TV game show to espouse their theories. And Lenin definitely ruled the 60s and 70's, who knows how far it could've gone if it wasn't for his assasination in the 80's.

[FireIceTalon]

Yes, im aware the format here is off. The paper itself is double spaced and has many paragraphs contrary to how it looks here. Anyway, I dont know if you read it or not, but not really sure what else one could ask of me based on what the expectations where for the assignment. This particular professor isn't the easiest of graders (nor the harshest), the majority of the class received a B with the average score being 84, iirc. All things considered, I dont think a 96 is too shabby . As for it being high school political science, this sounds like an elitist point of view, may be Im wrong. Care to further elaborate, possibly even point out specifics (assuming you've read it)? I guess you are trying to imply that the class is too easy? If so, I would say the class overall in pure honesty, was rather simple for me, but that could also be in part because I have a huge passion for this stuff. Of course, thats not to say I didnt learn anything, because then I would be lying. There were some students who struggled with a portion of the material but it seems likely most them were not poli sci majors, as this particular course is geared more for students of this major. Im pretty sure American Government (pol sci 1 at my school) is required for most majors but I dont think Western Political Thought (pol sci 5) is. Anyway, the particular school I attend (Los Angeles Pierce College) has a pretty good reputation overall and is considered one of the better schools in my area. Like any school, the classes vary in difficulty and it really comes down to the professor and his/her expectations, as well as your own expectations and your drive and ambition.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I started to actually grade this pile of tripe, but I just couldn't force myself to go on. I made it about one page, then decided to do something more useful and fun -- perhaps clean out the litter box. This is what I did before becoming terminally bored:

John Rawls' (1921-2002) 1958 article, Justice As Fairness, underscores the traditional and enduring struggle seen in any political system and society: the reconciliation of freedom versus equality.

There should be quote marks around the title of the article.

The paper "underscores" a "struggle" which is a "reconciliation" of one thing "versus" another?

"Underscores" means to emphasize. While I haven't read that paper, I suspect it "discusses", "proposes", or "analyzes" the topic.

A "struggle" cannot be a "reconciliation", although a reconciliation can be part of a struggle. A "reconciliation" cannot be "versus" two quantities. You can have a reconciliation of freedom and equality (the two were in conflict, but are being brought together). You can have a conflict of freedom versus equality -- although "conflict between freedom and equality" would be less pretentious.

Poor word usage, gobbledygook construction.

It is this idea which I will examine.

Which idea? You haven't mentioned any idea, thesis, concept, proposal, or anything of the sort.

Following this,

Again, what is the antecedent of “this”? A (weak) argument could be made, I suppose, that this “this” refers to your examination of the yet undefined idea.

I will apply his theories and their relevance to modern American society on three separate but related realms: politics, economics, and social/cultural structures, that ostensibly influence our culture and how we view society.

Run on sentence and comma splice after “structures”.

I might be able to understand what “apply his theories” means, but I’m totally at loss for what “apply ... their relevance” can possibly mean. At the very least, it is redundant (if you apply the theories, don’t you automatically apply the relevance?).

Unless you plan to argue that the “realms” do not in fact influence our culture (and thus justify the "ostensibly”) the last ten words of that sentence are just padding.

Some key institutionalized issues we currently face in each of these areas serving as justification will be provided.

What will be provided? The “key institutionalized issues”? The “justifications” (and justification of what?) This sentence not only says nothing, it says it badly.

According to Rawls, it is important we first establish that justice and fairness are not the same thing (McQuitty 194).

Again, this is an awkward construction. Change it to “important that we” or “important to establish”.

Justice is a comprehensive system of socially constructed virtues and practices we have to keep civil society intact, while fairness refers to a context of equity which may or may not be just.

A number of problems here.

First, something is needed between “we have” and “to keep”. Perhaps “developed” or “accepted” or “evolved”. Alternatively, replace "we have to" with "which" if that was your intended meaning.

Second, neither the definition of “justice” nor of “fairness” actually does any defining. Neither tells us what class the entities belong to nor how they differ from other members of that class (basic definition of a definition).

There is a profound relationship between justice and fairness for Rawls, however: fairness is one of the intrinsic elements found within justice itself.

Good for Rawls. That part of the sentence tells the reader nothing.

Run on sentence and comma splice after “Rawls”.

Colon after “however” where there should be a comma.

Why “however”? In this concept it would seem to imply that the following statement is in some form of conflict with the preceding statement. The two statements, as written, have nearly nothing in common.

Rawl's theory is composed of the following two tenets: 1. Each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. 2. Inequalities are only permissible if they benefit all of society and that those with the greatest disadvantage will still benefit; offices and open positions must be open to all under fair and equal opportunity (DeLue 250).

What is a "practice" in this context? How did we get into “offices and open positions”? Do you mean political offices? Are these the “idea” which you are going to examine?

At this point, I gave up trying to do a point by point analysis. I can only say that, had I turned in this paper as a junior in high school, dear little (but wide) Sister Tomas Margret would have put her size sixes where the sun doesn't shine. She would not have given me a bad grade -- she would have refused to grade it at all and demanded a rewrite.

This type of writing might, possibly, just barely pass muster for an in class assignment, where there isn't much time to organize the material and then revise for clarity. As a project? There is no logical flow. There is no obvious thesis. A large number of big words are being bandied about -- most of them incorrectly ("I do not think it means what you think it means"). Statements are being made, but neither derived nor supported.

Neither the mechanics of good writing nor the techniques of good writing are demonstrated in this paper. If this paper did indeed get an A, then either the bar for style and content was very low, or the A was a reward for faithfully regurgitating the professor's prejudices.

--Pete

EDIT Three additional things, all from pasting the paper into Word.

First, a ten page document with only 16 paragraphs? More than 10 sentences in a paragraph and more than 26 words in a sentence? Right there we have strong indications of poor writing -- either intentional or accidental obfuscation.

Second, a quick grammar check by Word gave 78 errors (I think -- I might have lost count). Now, Word is not a great proofreader, but there is usually something wrong when it flags a mistake -- perhaps not what it flagged, but something. Also, Word uses only the most primitive word usage rules.

Third, Word has a nice summary function. Using it yields this somewhat clearer version in which the logical fallacies stand out even better:

John Rawls' (1921-2002) 1958 article, Justice As Fairness, underscores the traditional and enduring struggle seen in any political system and society: the reconciliation of freedom versus equality. Justice is a comprehensive system of socially constructed virtues and practices we have to keep civil society intact, while fairness refers to a context of equity which may or may not be just. In short, all people must be granted justice which protects basic civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. This inequality benefits the weaker player to create a more fair playing field, just as the second tenet in Rawls' theory applies to social and economic inequalities in society. To answer this question, we must first examine another important idea that Rawls had in his theory of justice, “the Veil of Ignorance.”

“The Veil of Ignorance” introduces the idea of a hypothetical society where people lack a knowledge of self: we do not know our individual talents, the social class we were born into, how much wealth or resources we have access to, or other extrinsic variables. We do however, still have knowledge about our society, its values, culture, laws, and so forth. Putting Rawls' idea into practice is difficult, because we know which principles of justice will benefit us and which ones will not. And with people naturally pursuing their own interests first, this further compounds the issue of theory versus practicality. Rawls' theory is applicable in virtually any modern society today, but perhaps no other nation underscores the idea of justice as fairness, or freedom versus equality, better than the United States. The paradigm of American politics, compounded by the many different cultural values, social classes and ethnic groups, creates a vast and complicated structure within our society regarding various issues and propositions. By applying Rawls' idea of justice as fairness to some of these affairs, we can obtain a better understanding of their fundamental and dynamically historical - yet perpetuating context; on a political, economical, and social level. I will begin in the political realm, by examining some of the common but critical issues and questions that we face today, in the American political system.

Should Americans be allowed a system of direct democracy rather than representative democracy? Many Americans, with some justice, have come to believe the two party system is no longer working for them and want reform. Would Americans be better served under a parliamentary system, where proportional representation that allows more parties to be involved in legislation (as opposed to single member districts, seen in our current system), than under our more stable but less efficient presidential system? Most Americans are not yet willing to embrace or even consider such a dramatic change, even if they feel the two party system is no longer fair and just. Our political system, values, culture, and way of life are so entrenched in traditional legitimacy, it is difficult for changes (especially substantial ones) to take place, even if we want or need them to. The two party paradigm could also be a probable culprit of lower voter turnout in American elections.

Did Rawls condone the ability of politicians to be “bought?” Furthermore, it creates a fallacy that we have a transparent political system that is fair and just, that all eligible citizens have a reasonable amount of autonomy in politics, and that we have a legitimate choice in spite of both parties being “funded” by wealthy capitalists and special interest groups to see their interests mutually obtained at the expense of common citizens. Even looking past this, the fairness and justice of the American political system is, at best, questionable, with its ambiguous future. I will now examine Rawls' idea in an economical context, with a critique of American capitalism.

The top 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million citizens combined. Applying Rawls' theory to capitalism, we can discover several elements that are intrinsic to just how unjust and unfair of a system it is. Can a system that seeks to create competition but defeats its very purpose by eliminating competition be considered fair and just? Capitalism is a system based on the ideology of Social Darwinism, where only the strongest survive. It is a morally bankrupt system that puts profits, consumerism, and materialism above social needs, merit and integrity.

There is nothing fair or just about such a system, in the context of Rawls' theory or otherwise.

The United States may boast being the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest economy, but it also has the largest economic inequality and disparity in social class compared to any other democracy (O'Neil 76). In short, capitalism manifests its own demise through a multitude of paradoxical elements, as Marx observed. In the context of Rawls' theory, such a system that benefits only a certain group of citizens cannot be considered fair and just except for those who benefit from it, because of the inequality of resources and wealth among the various social classes. Finally, I would like to examine a few paradoxical social/cultural values and ideas in American society, and their interrelationship with the American political and economic system.

Perhaps the most important cultural paradox of our society is The American Dream itself, based on the Horatio Alger Myth. It implies that everyone can achieve success through hard work and perseverance (Charon 28). Of course, there are also race, gender, and class elements in the structures of society that shape our values and perceptions toward certain types of people as well, that hold precedence over individual character and merit. This problem is a result of laissez-faire racism (as opposed to traditional Jim Crowe racism), a contour of our society today.

I have detailed how our political and economic systems have shaped our cultural values within American society. Given the above circumstances, is our society fair and just in the context of Rawls' philosophy? The veil theory will allow us to take the first critical step into achieving a fair and just society, in our political, economic, and cultural realms for everyone, as Rawls' theory envisions.

[Hammerskjold]

As for it being high school political science, this sounds like an elitist point of view, may be Im wrong. Care to further elaborate, possibly even point out specifics (assuming you've read it)?

When I say high school level stuff, I'm talking about the lack of clarity in that paper. I've read university papers that has the same level and amount of filler.

It's a whole other thread and can of worms of why I think that method of assigning x amount of pages is rote checklist teaching at best, and idiotic at worst when misapplied. Which seems to be most of the time.

Ever been to one of those restaurants or burger joints where they have a gimmick? Whether it's flying knives or singing waiters or fancy plate twirling. Those can be entertaining. But unless you're just there for the acrobatics, you will eventually want to find out if the food is any good.

7-10 pages with lots of plate spinning makes me ask, can you just get to the main course?

Now if you think that's an elitist attitude, I got some sobering news for you. This is how a large part of the world works. If you (not just you specifically) can't communicate clearly and quickly, I will tune you out.

This is not an elistist 'tude, this is how it works outside the classroom.

Pete gave you a pretty good critique, and although I strongly disagree with the way he started this thread, he did do something generous with his last reply. Because in the real world, a correction is valuable. If he was out to get you, he'd probably just smile and be silent, and watch the train wreck.

[FireIceTalon]

I refuse to read any of his posts at this point. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with him (there are several posters in this thread who I disagree with and don't have ignored), and everything to do with that I dislike like him as a person. The best he could ever expect from me regarding anything about him is indifference. I rarely say this about someone Ive never even met, but even since I signed up here years ago I always thought his posts and manner were rather along the lines of something resembling douche baggery. But his recent antics basically earned himself a one-way ticket to my sh*tlist. I can't stand people who think they know it all, then anyone who sees otherwise is automatically stupid or ignorant. He is, at the very least, disrespectful and condescending, arrogant (though he certainly has nothing to be arrogant about), if not downright rude. And first impressions, as you know, pretty much make or break almost any initial meeting (formal or otherwise). Im sure he feels the same about me. But quite frankly, I dont give a damn. Im not the only one who feels this way about him either, believe me. Ive talked to more than a handful of individuals on Bnet that no longer post here specifically because of him. Anyways....

If your complaint is about the length, talk to the professor, not me lol. I simply followed instructions. Dont get me wrong, im the first to question authority and I know how to think for myself, but in this case, his expectations I thought were fairly reasonable. Besides, you dont really have much choice, when your grade is on the line. This particular professor was perfectly fine with you disagreeing with him (so long as you could back it up), but not following his instructions would hurt your grade substantially. Basically, this paper was to consist of 2-3 pages of discussing a political thinkers ideas, another 2-3 pages of these theories applied in modern society, and finally 2-3 pages more providing and discussing specific examples. I combined the application of the theories and the examples together. Maybe this seems like why its not clear? I dont know, but I felt this was the most logical way of doing it so the reader wouldnt have to flip back and forth between discussion of application and examples. And because Rawls theory applies to politics, economics, and social structures, I wanted to cover all three but separately to maintain flow. *shrugs*

One other thing, upon receiving this paper as an assignment, I actually knew very little about Rawls and had only read bits and pieces of some of his work in a prior philosophy class I took. Initially I was going to do this paper on Marx, but decided against it because I wanted to challenge myself on a theorist that interested me but yet I knew little of. Besides, half the class chose Marx for their paper, heh. Even though we covered Rawls in the course, my paper was done before our discussion of him. So this paper was a learning process for me since I completely relied on my own research, rather than on class discussions and notes to give me prior knowledge as starting point for the paper.

[eppie]

You have a better chance at finding a cure for cancer than you do convincing me that capitalism is an ideal, fair and just system.

Capitalism, in theory, is the most absolute fair and ideal system ever.

• private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages
  
• production is carried out to generate profit and is governed subject to the laws of capital accumulation, regardless of legal ownership titles
  
• Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including the determination of how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.
  

Basically, If I can find a way to make money that is legal within the laws of the lands, I'm more than welcome to do so.

That to me sounds like Rising and falling based on the merits of ones actions. Free Will and what not. I like that idea.

As I wrote before there are some issues here. You make a kind of generalisation of what you think is fair but omit some very important things.
Capitalism needs population growth.
Capitalism needs increasing consumption.
Capitalism needs 'free' raw materials to be sustainable, and even then will only be sustainable in part of the world.

If capitalism didnot need economic growth I would agree with you.
Capitalism can make it work but it will need to change. One important thing is introducing a cost for use of things like, land, oil, water that refelcts the damage that is done obtaining that land, oil or water, only then capitalism will become sustainable.
Capitalism as it is now, will intrinsicly lead to overpopulation, financial, and food crises.

[--Pete]

Hi,

As I wrote before there are some issues here. You make a kind of generalisation of what you think is fair but omit some very important things.
Capitalism needs population growth.
Capitalism needs increasing consumption.
Capitalism needs 'free' raw materials to be sustainable, and even then will only be sustainable in part of the world.

What is your definition of "capitalism"?

I think we can agree that capitalism is an economic system. That the essential characteristic of capitalism is private ownership. That an individual or an entity is entitled to a reward (profit) for their investment in time, effort, or money.

What are your additional constraints or characteristics that lead to the conclusion that capitalism requires growth for its existence?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

When I say high school level stuff, I'm talking about the lack of clarity in that paper.

Indeed. I read through that paper. I copied it into Word and tried to outline it. I played around with it. I was not able to determine the focus of that paper, the point it was trying to make.

It's a whole other thread and can of worms of why I think that method of assigning x amount of pages is rote checklist teaching at best, and idiotic at worst when misapplied. Which seems to be most of the time.

I agree. There are times when a word count or a page count makes sense (for instance when the assignment is a creative writing exercise -- "No, I will not accept a five line sonnet!"). Most of the time, the length of a paper should be long enough to clearly present the issue and no longer. Whether that's a five volume opus on the nature of reality, or a simple "What chair" should be left to the student. The determination, after the fact, of whether the student was too terse or too verbose is the teacher's prerogative.

Now if you think that's an elitist attitude, I got some sobering news for you. This is how a large part of the world works. If you (not just you specifically) can't communicate clearly and quickly, I will tune you out.

Or, if you are the boss and cannot tune him out, you probably would demand rewrites until the task is done, according to you, correctly.

... I strongly disagree with the way [Pete] started this thread, ...

This thread or this discussion (going back to the exchange on the D1 forum)? I can understand disagreeing with what I said, but don't understand what you mean about disagreeing with how I said it.

Because in the real world, a correction is valuable.

There are people who, when corrected, say "Thank you", consider the correction, and either incorporate the correction, use it as a basis for a better discussion, or reject it for a valid reason. There are other people who, when corrected, hit the "Ignore" button.

--Pete

[Tal]

Ive talked to more than a handful of individuals on Bnet that no longer post here specifically because of him.

Why do you continue to mention this? What effect do you think it to have? Those that can stand the fire stay in the kitchen. If it is Pete who intimidates them from posting to the Lounge then we're probably better off.

The use of Ignore is every user's right and I'm glad you made use of it since Pete has upset you greatly. But what is the purpose of having the passive-aggressive attack against Pete in your signature? It's the online version of the kid mocking the tiger behind the glass at the zoo. In other words - immature and pointless.

[kandrathe]

Capitalism needs population growth.

There is a myth popular with anti-capitalist that capitalism is a pyramid scheme. I think the argument is rather chicken/egg, in that initially moving from agrarian to industrial, a population can grow due to excess abundance, but once people do not need to rely on the labor of their offspring they choose to have fewer children. I would agree that capitalism encourages economic growth, but I've never thought that was a bad thing.

Capitalists may profit from population growth, but capitalism has little to do with population growth other than in providing the improvement in quality of life sufficient to enable people to not rely on their offspring for taking care of them in their old age. Hence, the world is simultaneously experiencing a large number of elderly people, which actually exposes the weakness of socialism. I suspect that over the next decade there will be quite a bit of selfish argumentation for increased socialism and social spending due to this large number of dependent elderly. However, the youth who will increasingly be shouldering the burden may rebel against it. In 2010 in the US the ratio of >65 people to workers is 5 to 1, by 2020 that ratio will be 4 to 1, and by 2030 it will be 3 to 1.

Increased population means increased demand for goods and services, hence the size of the pie increases for everyone. But, similarly, once the population nears the theoretical maximum bearing weight, it is in the best interest of profits to curtail population. Shortages in commodities, and the resultant social unrest cause disturbances in the economy, which is bad for business. Pollution is similarly bad business, as it causes illness, or death which saps productivity and increases the number of dependents. What you and I really despise are opportunists who bamboozle people for short term gains at other peoples expense. But, it is unfair to label all Capitalists as confidence tricksters.

However, it is overly simplistic to assume with zero or declining population growth there are no opportunities for investment. Things are changing all the time making certain goods and services obsolete and other in new demand. Technology obsoleted the buggy whip, and the local livery stable, but converted the carriage into the motor carriage. Blacksmiths became garage mechanics, or mechanical engineers.

Capitalism needs increasing consumption.

Again, I think this is fallacious in omission. In order to be profitable (growing), a business needs an increasing market share, but this can come from a better product resulting in a greater slice of the same market pie.

Central to the socialist theme is class warfare where the wealthy are characterized as undeserving of their profits. But, let's say some over consuming wealthy person owns three nice cars. Who built those cars? Who mined the materials to produce them? How many can that person drive at one time? What do they do when the cars are "not new", or "not in style"? They sell them used to someone who can get better utility from them.

But, yes, a business can also be profitable by increasing the number of products consumed. Something as ubiquitous as Coca-cola still only has a 53 percent world market share. Somewhere in the world is a person who has never tried a cold Coke on hot summer day. In the US, people consume about 31.3 liters of Coke per capita (about 1 every 4 days), while in China it is only 1.2 liters per capita. It doesn't mean that people in the US are pounding down more Coke. The average person drinks about 2.4 liters of fluid in a day, so there is lots of room for growth. Especially if they went ahead and reformulated it to be actually nutritious, then we may not complain so much about the increasing consumption of Coca-cola.

Capitalism needs 'free' raw materials to be sustainable, and even then will only be sustainable in part of the world.

This goes hand in hand with your consumption argument. But, here too you overlook some glaring things, and make simplistic assumptions about the economy.

What percentage of the economy is labor and services? On the way home today you get a massage for $10, and the masseuse will take the $10 and buy groceries at the farmers market. You earned the $10 by using your mind in some pharmaceutical lab. The company where you work is betting on you to create some chemistry (intellectual property) that they can patent and mass produce a product they can sell. The farmer exchanged his labor planting, weeding, and picking the produce that the masseuse bought. Everyone has profited. You get a relaxed back, and a place to engage in your profession. The company has taken a long term risk on you, but someday they may recoup their investment many times over. The farmer has used their land to grow food, and engaged their labor to sell in a market and earn a profit. The masseuse has exchanged a service you needed or desired into a delicious meal for their family.

What is bad is the waste of non-renewable resources. This is not a capitalism thing, that is a waste that can occur under any economic system. Do you think they drink Coke differently in Beijing, Moscow, Havana, or Caracas? SUV sales worldwide are highest in Venezuela because the market price is set by Chavez at about 15 cents a gallon. Were the market to set the price, hardly anyone could afford to drive.

If capitalism did not need economic growth I would agree with you.
Capitalism can make it work but it will need to change. One important thing is introducing a cost for use of things like, land, oil, water that reflects the damage that is done obtaining that land, oil or water, only then capitalism will become sustainable.

How are the costs for land, oil, water not built into the price? At least here in the US, pollution is too costly for business to ignore, and through government oversight, few people get away with it. And, once they are caught, they are still on the hook for cleanup of their mess. The cost of stringent pollution laws in the US is the migration of manufacturing to places where they don't care as much about their environment. The only culprit who gets away with rampant abuse of the environment in the US, is the US government.

Capitalism as it is now, will intrinsically lead to overpopulation, financial, and food crises.

These things will come with or without capitalism. You might take your argument a step further... Capitalism causes hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. The socialist hero Chavez has even declared that volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, are the result of capitalism.

Right wing nuts think God causes natural disasters, and left wing nuts believe capitalism causes natural disasters. Which would make the craziest form of government a theocratic socialist state.

[--Pete]

Hi, Tal,

Why do you continue to mention this?

Please, just let it ride. It doesn't bother me. People will decide about me in one way or another.

Although I'm curious about just who I've driven away. There are some who seldom or ever post here anymore who I miss. I hope I'm not the reason for their deep lurk.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

How are the costs for land, oil, water not built into the price?

I think what he's looking at is the tragedy of the commons. Unrestrained fishing destroys the fish populations. Unrestrained timber harvesting destroys the forests. Unrestrained slash and burn farming destroys the land. Etc.

There are two things being overlooked: First is that those same practices can (and have) occurred under every economic system to date. Second is that those practices have been harshest where the resource is either "unowned" (e.g., fishing areas in international waters) or owned by the government.

The private ownership of fish farms changes the attitude from "how many can I catch today" to "how can I maximize the long term viability". The private ownership of tree farms leads to the consideration of the costs, other than monetary, of clear cutting. The private ownership of farms leads to the consideration of long term sustainability.

Indeed, the history of commonly held resources compared to privately owned resources indicates that, most often, private ownership leads to better stewardship.

If no one owns something, then everyone wants a piece of it for short term gain and nobody can be bothered to preserve it for the long run. However, if someone does own it, then intelligent self interest will lead to consideration of both short and long term gain.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

If no one owns something, then everyone wants a piece of it for short term gain and nobody can be bothered to preserve it for the long run. However, if someone does own it, then intelligent self interest will may lead to consideration of both short and long term gain.

--Pete

Fixed that for you. Long term gain for some folks is only a few years, due to the (often accurate) perception that they need not clean up after themselves and that they can move on to greener pastures with ease. Others will think in terms of generations.

The history of the mining industry in both of our countries is clear evidence of the former attitude prevailing in most cases.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If no one owns something, then everyone wants a piece of it for short term gain and nobody can be bothered to preserve it for the long run. However, if someone does own it, then intelligent self interest will may lead to consideration of both short and long term gain.

--Pete

Fixed that for you. Long term gain for some folks is only a few years, due to the (often accurate) perception that they need not clean up after themselves and that they can move on to greener pastures with ease. Others will think in terms of generations.

The history of the mining industry in both of our countries is clear evidence of the former attitude prevailing in most cases.

Thanks. You are right.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

i haetz Pete bla bla bla bla

Yeah, most likely no one really cares much. I've seen behaviours lately that I'd bet wouldn't be tolerated here 4-5 years ago, but the harsh truth is this. No one really cares.

I'll try to be clearer. You're on a video game website, in the general section forum. On the innernets. Everyone else got their own drama to deal with.

Moving on to something more worthwhile.

If your complaint is about the length, talk to the professor, not me lol.

Page count is not my only concern. It's the amount of pages + word fillers + fuzziness = Zzzzzzzz

7-10 pages written clearly can be a pleasure and a breeze to read. A paragraph of jumbled word salad, can be a chore to digest.

Besides, you dont really have much choice, when your grade is on the line.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. Not every assignment or job task is OMGBRILLIANCE!!!11. Sometimes it's just an assignment, you do your best, get your checkmark or paycheck, and move on.

Basically, this paper was to consist of 2-3 pages of discussing a political thinkers ideas, another 2-3 pages of these theories applied in modern society, and finally 2-3 pages more providing and discussing specific examples.

Yeah, looks straightforward so far.

I combined the application of the theories and the examples together. Maybe this seems like why its not clear?

I'm going to go on a limb and say, forget the trees right now and just look at the forest.

I did try reading it. I scanned it quickly, I read it slower, I tried going paragraph by paragraph.

I keep getting flashbacks of this:

http://www.lipsum.com/

The paper you put up doesn't give much clarity on what you are trying to say. It reads like a rough draft version 1.5 of a book report.

'Oh whatever STFUOMGBBQ, I got an A on it!'. Here I can only guess from the info you gave me.

There were some students who struggled with a portion of the material but it seems likely most them were not poli sci majors, as this particular course is geared more for students of this major.

Is that A based on a relative scale, ie: it's best in show type. Or is it more 'these are the criteria you must meet to get this grade'. I'm leaning more towards the first type.

So this paper was a learning process for me

That to me, is about a thousand times more important and valuable than trumpeting your A.

since I completely relied on my own research, rather than on class discussions and notes to give me prior knowledge as starting point for the paper.

Be aware there is tons of needless failures caused by 'I'm going to do my own research on it'. Sometimes there is no other way, sometimes it's just plain hubris. Learn to be brutally honest so you can spot the difference.




TL, DR:

re: writing stuff goodly

The only reason I even bother in this thread, is mostly this:

I enjoy writing about this stuff, afterall its why Im a poli sci major! I cannot see myself doing anything else but something related to politics, be it writing about contemporary affairs, political theory, analyzing data and patterns related to specific political and economic systems or even being directly involved in politics itself (though this is unlikely since I love politics but generally dislike politicians, go figure

You are enthused and fired up, that's great. Your writing skills however, needs work. That is, if you want to get paid for writing. About anything. Just look at that paragraph above, holy run on sentences Batman! Well it's just a forum, it's not like it's for realsies, its just for play-play right?

So you showed us an example of your -real- stuff. And...yeah.

My 2 cents on it, don't fall in love with that grade. Don't fall in love with your own writing 'style'. Be ruthless (with your own work), get better. Kick your ego to the curb. Drop the internet tough guy 'tude.

Because once you're out of class, the real world will teach you hard lessons real quick. And the 'skills' you've displayed here so far, will not help you.

If you think I'm insulting you, or challenging you, just stop. The stuff I and others have said in this thread, are milk and cookies compared to what's out there. You waving around that A paper will be about as effective as a wet noodle vs Godzilla.

TL,DR pt Deux:

Don't waste time replying to me. Or to anyone else you think needs 'correcting' be it their wrong ideology, how they hang their toilet paper, or their preference of coke vs pepsi.

If you're absolutely serious about pursuing your field and writing gooder to goodest, go do it.