Blog Assignment 4 - Self-censoring libertarianism v. anarchist libertarianism

To find the similarity between self-censoring libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism we only need to strip the adjective from each term. This leaves us with one word: libertarianism.  Above all, libertarians believe in personal freedoms and rights.  More specifically, libertarians believe in the right to self-ownership and thus the right to the products derived from an individual’s personal labor.  These rights come from the assumption that people act on the tenants of knowledge, justice, integrity, and reason.

Where self-censoring libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism drift apart from each other is the willingness of each to accept or reject the need for government.  A self-censoring libertarian would relent from the ideals of libertarianism to accept that societies on a large scale cannot be trusted to function under the ideals of libertarianism.  Because of this, self-censoring libertarians accept the need for government to assist in the provision of what are known in economic terms as both public goods such as a military, a lighthouse or clean air, and quasi-public goods such as streets, law enforcement, or libraries.  Anarchist libertarians reject the need for a government and the concept that any person or entity should have the ability to hold any power over themselves as individuals in any context.

Simply put, anarchist libertarians are idealists who believe in a utopian society while self-censoring libertarians are pragmatists, seeing the need for a higher governing power to guard the rights of its citizens under fair and impartial laws.  The ideas presented by anarchist libertarians are nice, but they fail to take into account the inevitable non-believers of a system based upon justice, integrity, and reason.  These non-believers will act for their own benefit without fear of oppressing the freedoms of others, therefore destroying the assumed anarchist libertarian’s utopian society and creating a need for public goods.

Blog Assignment 3 - Tunisia and Mali

Tunisia
The Arab Spring started here in December of 2010 after a street vendor set himself on fire in both desperation from and protest against his lack of opportunity.  This protest was the catalyst for a series of street protests known and the Jasmine Revolution, which was largely captured and furthered via social rather than traditional media. President Ben Ali was forced out of the country by mid January of 2011 and by October of 2011 Tunisia had its first free elections. The moderate Islamist party Ennahda, or Renaissance won the election with a pluralist majority, and, by December, Moncef Marzouki was named interim president.  Since then, there has been unrest over the control of mosques and how successful religious leadership can work within a democracy even though Ennahda has kept Islamist laws out of the secular nations constitution.  

Mali
In March of 2012, the Malian government was overthrown by soldiers after what the soldiers determined to be a mishandling of a Toureg rebellion.  The Touregs are a displaced, nomadic people who, after the coup, took over much of Northern Mali.  The Touregs were not strong enough to retain power of the areas they controlled and were soon overrun by Islamist extremists.  With no strong military presence or control to stop factions such as Al Qaeda,  Northern Mali turned into a safe haven for terrorists. France has stepped in, attempting to regain control of the area while Mali restabilizes its government and military.

Thoughts
I think what is most interested in these two cases, expanding the thought to Libya and Egypt as well, is that after rebellions are able to force a coup the uprisings are often unprepared to quickly create stable governments, leaving their nations vulnerable in several ways.  It’s hard to argue with any person or group rebelling against oppression but the consequences of their actions may be more dire than the original circumstances.  To put it into simpler terms, some children may not like their parents, but if those children are not prepared to fend for themselves, how smart is it to push away the people who may not only oppress them but may also support them?  It’s a tough call.

Blog Assignment 2 - Merkel, Plagiarists, and the Upcoming German Election

Annette Schavan, German Education Minister, Resigns Over PhD Plagiarism Scandal. ~GlobalPost
(http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/germany/130209/annette-schavan-german-education-minister-resigns-plagiarism)

From this article I learned that the German education minister Annette Schavan was stripped of her PhD by the University of Dusseldorf for plagiarism last week.  I also discovered that this is not the first instance of plagiarism to strike Angela Merkel’s Cabinet.  In 2011 the former German defense minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, resigned from his post after he was found to have plagiarized his doctoral thesis.  The article made sure to note Schavan’s hypocrisy for harshly admonishing Guttenberg in 2011 for his plagiarism when she seems to have been guilty of the same lapse in integrity.  According to the article, Schavan denies any wrongdoing and promises to retaliate through legal action.  Wrongly accused or not, Schavan finds it best to step down from Merkel’s Cabinet to avoid being a distraction.  Merkel’s Christian Democratic coalition claims that the PhD scandal is “a politically motivated set up” aiming to strip away some of the party’s credibility as elections approach in late September.

I think that Merkel’s Christian Democratic coalition calling this a set up to try and save face is a weak and silly claim.  There can be no mistaking that Schavan’s plagiarism scandal came during a politically crucial time. That said, for this to qualify as a set up the accusation of plagiarism against Schavan would have to be false.   I am going to have a hard time believing that the University of Dusseldorf would implement such a heavy handed ruling against the standing education minister unless they were absolutely certain.  Although I am not familiar with the current political climate in Germany as the elections approach, I have a feeling Merkel’s longstanding political position is growing harder and harder to retain.

To be honest, I'd feel and look as guilty as Schavan does here too if, because of me, it looked like my Prime Minister were wondering how many more plagiarists are in her cabinet.

Photo:
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-457249-panoV9free-vbjw.jpg

Blog Assignment 1 - Pros and Cons of News Agencies - CSUCOM359

As an organization of journalists, news agencies have the ability to access and disseminate information faster than independent news operations.  These agencies have the funds to support satellite locations nationwide and worldwide, allowing news to be gathered and reported virtually as the news happens.  The distribution of information from these agencies reaches large audiences quickly, making both citizens and governments able to remain informed as events occur and evolve.  The expansive reach of news agencies can also help to inform people who otherwise may not be.  Informed people who understand the world around them and the world at large are better suited to make choices that positively affect them.  Large audiences may also lead to trustworthy information provided by news agencies because misinformation on a mass level would be dangerous for an agency’s integrity and stability and the audience’s well-being.

Some disadvantages that come from the existence of news agencies are largely corporate in nature.  Traditional journalism outlets are commonly considered to be an oligopoly with the large majority of the market shared among few providers.  These agencies function to turn a profit or remain supported so the interests of their sponsors becomes the interests of the agencies.  Once a tangible interest outside of the common qualities associated with journalism becomes present, it is difficult to consider the news that flows from these agencies to be without bias.  News agencies are in the business of providing information which can also designate that they control the information itself.  This means, to either the benefit or the detriment of the public, news agencies have the power to withhold, release, and frame information how they see fit.  Hegemony of that proportion, no matter how well intentioned, should be concerning to anybody.