Friday, May 4, 2012

In a free society laws subject to change


In a free society laws subject to change
4:40-5:10
The purpose of democracy is to offer representation and an equal voice for all the citizens. In addition the democratic government national and local have a responsibility to maintain law and order in society on a daily basis. In order to do the government, issues laws that are recorded in official government documents such as the Constitution to provide the security ad safety of people’s freedoms. Although most laws are fixed in  society there are some laws that are subject to change.

First consider a situation in which laws in a free society are subject to change. This scenario often occurs when an existing law has experienced a flaw such as a loop hole or resulted in unexpected circumstances. For example, in many US states there have been multiple “Stand your ground laws” state that acting in self defense is legitimate from attacker, have been issued as legal and legitimate until recently. In February 2012, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Florida was on his rounds in his neighborhood when he believed to be under threat by 17 year old Trayvon Martin. Martin who was walking home from school was talking on his phone. In the neighborhood community retreat of  Twin Lakes, Zimmerman got suspicious and called the neighborhood watch for assistance in further action. They advised him to follow, but lost track of him. Soon, at night when Trayvon Martin was coming home from a convenience store, Martin spotted Zimmerman.  Martin and Zimmerman exchanged words and apparently  when Zimmerman went to reach for his phone, Martin punched him in the nose. In retaliation, Zimmerman shot Martin in defense. After this incident the black community was outraged and asked for justice in that Martin was wrongly killed and underestimated. The initial encounter with police did not result in arrest because police sighted the “Stand your ground laws” as reasonable. However, the black community insist it was a racial attack on an unarmed black teenager. Currently, the “Stand your ground law” is being reviewed as to when it is ok to act in defense from an attacker and when it is not. Since Martin was fatally shot, “Stand your ground laws” is example when laws are subject to change in free society.

In contrast, consider a situation in which laws in a free society are subject to change. This scenario often occurs when an existing law is very effective and helpful in protecting the safety of the citizens. For example, consider the Department of Homeland Security/TSA mandatory pat down and security checking laws implemented in airports. Despite earlier controversies of the pat down, slight modifications were made but the laws are still implemented to maintain safety in all public transport in rail and flight. Another example, where laws remain stagnant are the NHRTA laws regulating the importance of safety in public infrastructure, automobiles and other transport vehicles. Since a lot of fatal car accident have occurred in the past the NHRTA was formed to  implement safety standards for the safety and protection of all licensed drivers. There have been tighter driving license examination and testing procedures to make sure that drivers especially the youth and elderly are aware of road and legal rules. Likewise, due to increased pollution and efforts to reduce carbon emission the EPA has issued mandatory laws for automobile manufacturers to design cars that burn clean natural gas and ethanol based gasoline. Thus, it is evident that, laws are not subject to change when it is effective in protecting the interests of the people.

Thus, it is circumstantial of when laws are subject to change. If a law, such as the “Stand your ground law” has loopholes in causing harm to people, like Trayvon Martin, then the law is to be changed to prevent fatal incidents of violence similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting by George Zimmerman. However, when a law is effective in protecting the interests and safety of the people as well as the nation then the law remains stagnant. This is especially true of laws relating to safety standards in all disciplines of society. Overall there needs to be a fine balance between the 2 extremes.

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.


Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.
5:10- 5:40

Since the start of human civilizations, a ruling class has been in place to maintain order in society. Without the ruling class, the rest of society will lack direction and pandemonium through violence and civil unrest will occur. Over time, the ruling class became more affiliated with wealth than with the common person and has often been challenging to offer fair representation for all people. In general the majority of the population have often expressed disapproval of a wealthy politician over a normal politician because people fear that fair representation may not be possible in some circumstances.

First consider  a situation when wealthy politicians can not offer fair representation to all people. This scenario is often true when there is only a handful of wealthy people and the rest are of the poor working class, which accurately portrays a third world country. In the South American country of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman was a wealthy politician who assumed the presidency in 2006 as the 81st president. Since then the country has been in famine and disease due to poor government regulations. Most politicians in impoverished countries come from wealthy backgrounds since money is required to campaign for office. In the case of Aleman, he was a lawyer and active in business of commodities such as coffee and tobacco. Since Nicaragua was a 3rd world country, many people can not afford to meet their biological needs of food, water, shelter and clothing, likewise have no access to education. After serving five years it was evident that Aleman’s administration there was widespread corruption in his government as. Also he was accused of money laundering and embezzling funds for personal gain. In all Arnoldo Aleman has embezzled $100 million while in office. This crime is very heinous considering the fact that most of the country is in poverty. Hence, Arnoldo Aleman is an example of a wealthy politician unable to show fair representation for the people.

In contrast, some wealthy politicians can offer fair representation to all people. Although many politicians are generally wealthy, local politicians can be examined here. David Miller is currently the mayor of Toronto, Ontario. Before serving as a politician he was a lawyer at a prominent law firm in Toronto. His annual salary stands at $163, 040 which is fairly wealthy but this year he declined a 2.42% wage increase. One of his campaigning promises was to stop a bridge from being constructed to Toronto Island Airport since he felt that doing so would put the interests of the lobbyists in front of the public. Likewise, when he was councilor of the ward he opposed a condominium building project near High park, and instead used that land for affordable housing for low income residents. He was also part of exposing a computer leasing scandal where the city’s budget chief had inappropriate relationships with the salesman of MEP financial services. He was reelected second term for his good action. Another example, President Barack Obama. Obama came from a middle class family and worked his way up the social ladder to becoming a lawyer and acquiring US presidency in 2009. Recently, there has been debate over increasing the college loan interest rates by Republicans to fuel more money into the private sector. Obama opposed this measure because his recent speech and earlier struggles surrounding the college loan interest issue relates to the struggles of so many college students across the US.  So it is evident that wealthy politicians such as Obama and Miller can offer fair representation to all people when they come from the same background as their constituents.

In all, it is circumstantial if a wealthy politician can offer fair representation or not. In a poor country, like Nicaragua, the people are less educated are less likely to demand accountability by the politicians. In these countries fair representation by wealthy politicians is not possible. Therefore, politicians are more likely to seek personal benefit since they can get away with the crime due to the illiteracy of the general public. In contrast, in industrialized countries like Canada, people are more educated and expect more accountability by the politicians. Freedoms by the constitution allow the people to access government information and thus wealthy politicians in these countries offer representation to all people since more checks and balances are in place. Also since politicians such as Obama and Miller come from middle class background, similar to their constituents they are able to understand issues and act in favor of them.