Final Position Paper

There are a few times in the world where some governments temporarily give up rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy. The United States of America is a democratic country and has limited their rights and freedoms in order to give the people more security and safety. This was started from the making of the Patriot act that was made and passed after the attacks of the twin towers in New York City (2001). Germany before Hitler’s rise to power was having major economic issues that had caused the quality of life for the Germans to be terrible. When Hitler came into power and suggested that Germany should go back to an authoritarian-run government, the people had no troubles with giving up their rights and freedoms because they knew that life before democracy was comfortable and their quality of life at the moment made them desperate for a change. The preservation of democracy is important for people so that they can have a better life, even if it means that their rights and freedoms are temporarily suspended.

The source promotes the temporary suspension of individual rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy. In order to have democracy there must be rights and freedoms for the individuals, however the viability of democracy, when those rights and freedoms are limited, it is okay to promote the temporary suspensions of those rights and freedoms in order to give more security to the universal whole of that country and to guarantee its democracy.

The United States of America had embraced individual rights and freedoms until the November 11^th attacks of 2001, which had involved hijacked planes crashing into and destroying the twin trade towers. After this incident the USA had created the PATRIOT act and put into effect. The Patriot act gave the people more security; however although it did give the people more safety from mainly terrorism, it gave the government the ability to gain easy access into personal records of any individual (as long as the individual is accused of terrorism or any crime). The American people do not mind the government temporarily taking their individual rights and freedoms away for that extra security and the government does still give them rights and freedoms, but just not as much as before the Patriot act. The source could very well be from an American citizen as the source does support the temporary suspension of rights and freedoms like those that the Patriot act limits. Normally when the individuals of a country give up their rights and freedoms, there is something that caused the sacrificing of their rights and freedoms. In the USA it was the 9/11 attacks and, for a more historical example, the desperation of the Germans before Hitler’s rise to power. At this time, the citizen’s life had lacked the necessities of living like food, shelter and jobs and so they became desperate. When Hitler had started his promotion for Chancellor he had supported absolute nationalism, the unification of all German speaking people and that Germany needs one strong leader. To the individuals, Hitler’s proposition of an authoritarian government looked good for them. The people did not really care about giving up their freedoms so things could be how they used to. Hitler did create an authoritarian government for Germany and then made it a dictatorship. With a dictatorship Hitler had unlimited power to do as he pleased and had the ability to do as he please. He took away the Jews rights and freedoms, as well as other liberal principles, by creating genocide against the Jews. The rest of the individuals did not mind because they finally got their comfortable life back and they could blame someone for the life under democracy. When the temporary suspension of rights and freedoms infringe any harm on a certain group or type of individual then it will not preserve democracy. Hitler was elected democratically in a fair election so there was democracy that could have been preserved; however, Hitler did not keep a democratic government but made an authoritarian government that suspended individual rights and freedoms.

The extent to which temporarily suspending rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy is when it infringes on the individuals. In both cases the individuals of the USA and Germany did voluntarily give up their rights and freedoms but the new authoritarian government of Germany did not become a democracy. The Patriot act still limits the American citizens’ rights and freedoms but the limitation gives the citizens more security that they feel is necessary to protect them. When the suspension of rights and freedoms are limited and not fully away taken then it is alright in order to preserve democracy.

Social Portfolio Extras

Bibliography

BBC. (n.d.). News World. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from BBC Mobile: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

canlit. (n.d.). The Canadian Literature Archive. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from University of Manitoba: http://www.umanitoba.ca/canlit/

Capital Community College Foundation. (n.d.). Guide to Grammer and Writing. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Guide to Grammer and Writing: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/

CBC. (n.d.). CBC. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/

CIA. (n.d.). The World Factbook. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Central Intellegence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

CLN. (n.d.). Community Learning Network. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from CLN: http://www.cln.org/subject_index.html

English Grammar and Style Theme Page. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from English Grammer and Style Theme Page: http://www.cln.org/themes/eng_grammar.html

Global Issues. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Global Issues: http://www.globalissues.org/

Government of Alberta. (n.d.). Learn Alberta. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Government of Alberta: http://www.learnalberta.ca/

Gray, T. A. (n.d.). Mr. William Shakespeare. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Mr. William Shakespeare: http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/

Humanities Department. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Lacombe Composite High School: http://elchs.wolfcreek.ab.ca/lcsweb/Departments/Humanities/

Ian Lancashire. (n.d.). Representative Poetry Online. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Representative Poetry Online: http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/display/index.cfm

ipl2. (n.d.). Literary Criticism. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from ipl2: http://www.ipl.org/div/litcrit/

LCHSHumanities30. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Wikispaces: http://lchshumanities30.wikispaces.com/

Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Library and Archives Canada. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Library and Archives Canada: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/canvers/index-e.html

Mabillard, A. (n.d.). Shakespeare Online. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Shakespeare Online: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/index.html

Poetry News. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from The League of Canadian Poets: http://www.poets.ca/

Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Statistics Canada: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

Tedford, R. (n.d.). Electronic Shakespear Sources for Researchers. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Electronic Shakespear Sources for Researchers: http://www.wfu.edu/~tedforrl/shakespeare/

The League of Canadian Poets. (n.d.). Young Poets. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Young Poets: http://www.youngpoets.ca/

World History. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from World History: http://worldhistory.pppst.com/index.html

Perspectives on Ideology: Focus Question #1

There are many different perspectives on collectivism and individualism and even a combination of the two. Some cultures prefer to be collectivists and some individuals chose to be individualists. Here are two examples from different sources that show either they are collectivists or individualists, their connection between liberalism and each other.

Source one is told from Mary Anulik Kitsiq, an Inuit. Mary talks about how Inuit people were very close to one another and that they held a strong relationship with their community. People would share what they had, even though they did not have much themselves. She then talks about how people in these days do not share with the less fortunate even though the rich have lots to spare, and then she continues to talking about as the population grows, so do the gap between people. In a nutshell Mary is discussing on how people used to be more of a collectivists society rather than the individualists society we have become. Its connection with Liberalism is with economic equality and rule of law. Economic equality is connected by how all things, like wealth and food, were shared equally amongst the whole community. Personally I believe that the rule of law is a part of the Inuit people’s society because they did treat everyone with the same level of respect; well perhaps slightly more towards their leader, and this is shown by how they distribute their food: all evenly.

In source 2 the man in the cartoon shows him in an individualism point of view. When the bear is holding out his cup, which shows sharing with others, the man with the briefcase tells him “In my days, bears worked for their honey” which shows that he thinks that people should work for their own goods (including food) and so it indicates that the guy is an individualist. The guy mainly thinks that you get for what you earn; if you work hard you will be rewarded. Its connection with Liberalism is with self interest, economic freedom, individual rights and freedoms, competition, and private property. Self interest is when you make the decisions based on your own interest, while economic freedom shows that you have the choice of what to do with your wealth. With individual rights and freedoms everyone has the same rights and freedoms and no one can take it away from the individual. Competition is a good thing for economies because it sets up a supply and demand outcome and businesses go in to competition with one another to make a profit. Individualism and liberalism are also connected by private property because you have the right to own land, buy and sell, own and business, intellectual property, and have the ability to own and use property.

The relationship between the first source and the second source is that they both infer that back in the “good old’ days” society, in general, were collectivists and now our world is an individualists society. In the past, the Inuit’s talk about sharing everything they had even if they did not have much themselves and so people looked after other people. Mary Anulik Kitsiq, the source one provider, had talked about how in history people used to be collectivists but as the population grows and time passes on we, as in society, become more and more individualists. The man in the cartoon (source 2) says “in my day, bears worked for their honey” which shows that he believes in individualism. The bear is holding a cup and symbolizes collectivism and sharing with others (although this bear is on the receiving end). The quote is talking about that in history the bears had to work for their honey. Coincidently honey rhymes with money. If you take a look at history, people used to share a lot more than they do now and so that ties with the first source. In conclusion, the first and second source are inter-related by how they both infer that in the past society were more like collectivists and here in the 21^st century people are more individualists and as time goes on, more and more people will become individualists.

In my final conclusion I would like to state that collectivism is connected to liberalism through economic equality and rule of law and that individualism is connected to liberalism by self interest, economic freedom, individual rights and freedoms, competition and private property. There is a balance between the two and that would be Liberalism because it gives you individual rights and freedoms while everything is for the great of the common good.

MC 1 (above right), MC 2 (above left), Run for the Cure 2010 (below)

Social 30-1 Portfolio

Issue 1: To what extent should ideology be the foundation of identity?

Focus question #1: Perspectives on ideology

Collective Norms – the standard that a group of people have.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Issue 2 & 3: To what extent is resistance to liberalism justified?

Constant Principles

Laissez Faire Capitalism – Without the involvement of the government when it comes to the economy; the individuals will run the economy.

Neo-Conservatism – someone who opposes government involvement in the economy while focusing the importance of private enterprise.

War Measure Act – A Canadian policy that allowed the government to have huge control of power in the event of war or in a state of emergency.

Individual Resistance 3

Issue 4: asses the viability of liberal principles in contemporary society

Aboriginal experiences of Liberalism in Canada: Standoff at Ipperwash Provincial Park, Ontario

Civil Disobedience – the refusal to obey certain laws or government regulations for the reason of have an effect on legislation or government policies.

A Comparison of liberalism in the States and Canada

Summerative Assessment

Multiple Choice #1

Multiple Choice #2

Position Paper

3 Sources Diploma Style Paper

Showcase

Run for the cure 2010 -Red Deer, Alberta

1984 Novel Study Story Board

Bibliography

The Importance of Self Interest

People cannot be fully free unless there is no fear and insecurity (individual rights and freedoms). In a Left (socialist) type of government fear can be used through the use of secret police which would make the people extremely cautious of what they say/do. Since the people cannot say or do things that they want to do then they have no freedom. A welfare state (welfare capitalism) would give people the freedom to grow financially and educationally so the individuals can be a part of the all American dream (self interest & economic freedom) without the fear of the government, hunger, homelessness and racism while having the ability to develop their individual capacities (through the use of competition) as assured by Freedom and the Welfare State.

Vital Speeches of the Day is saying that the socialist government (the Left) will take things, like farms and natural resources from the people who own them and spread it out to everyone. The farmers do not have self interest so they can grow economically and their private property becomes public property. When the socialist government does this, it leaves the whole fed but not with full stomachs which leads them into hunger. The individuals will grow poor and leave the country hungry from the lack of human labour when applied to natural resources. Without private property, self interest, competition and economic freedom then the individuals will soon meet their demise.

The cartoon represents the rich and elite in their huge house that shows their indulgeant lives. The one male in the cartoon are reading the newspaper in which the title reads “Good times: even the poor gain”. The rich men do not like the poor gaining capital because with self interest, the rich become richer. The economic boom helped out everyone and the individuals who strongly believe in self interest, like the men in the cartoon, do not like that fact that everyone prospers.

With all of the sources they all have self interest that exists among them. Self interest in the first source is represented in “to receive just awards for their talents and to engage in the pursuit of happiness” in that the individuals must have the ability and chance to put themselves first (economically in this case) above anyone else. The cartoon had the same interpretation in that the men had put them first before everyone else economically. In the second source, self interest is mandatory for the individuals in order to grow economically and to keep food on the table. Self interest is shared among all three sources as a principle of liberalism that people should have.

Position Paper: Issue 3

In a democracy like here in Canada there tends to be either a conservative or liberal (not including the results of the previous elections of 2011) government in power. Friedrich von Hayek was a conservative himself so he had thought that society should embrace self interest and economic freedom. Hayek used directed economy to represent a socialist economy which has no economic freedom for the individuals without the use of force, since there is no economic freedom then there is not self interest which backs up economic freedom. No equality can be achieved with a directed economy. When self interest and economic freedom have been abused then that is the point where it should be embraced more in order to bring back a part of a conservative democracy.

Hayek believed when a directed (socialist) economy uses force, fraud or theft when it comes to production, trade and consuming then economic freedom should be embraced by that society/country. Russia is a prime example of a socialist economy, especially during Stalin’s five year plan. The state owns all of the farms and so when the government wanted more exports of grain then the state would force the farmers to grow more grain. The farmers were hardly paid as the Russian government wanted to save a few more bucks by paying people less like the farmers and during this time there was no subsides for the farmers. It was almost like theft since the government took the goods from the farmers and left them with nothing. Life was hard for the farmers to earn wages and to keep food on the table for their family. Through Hayek’s quote it is safe to say that if the Russian government were to embrace economic freedom then the farmers would be able to make an income and be more equal with society. Canada, on the other hand, currently day has economic freedom. The citizens can go and put their financials into the market on free will. Canadian farmers has the freedom to produce, trade and consume any good and services acquired which shows that Canada has economic freedom since it is done without the use of force, fraud or theft. Canada has embraced economic freedom because it is good for the people which is what Hayek believed in. If a society were to embrace economic freedom to the point of which people were to become too selfish then it must be more controlled until the position where that country has economic freedom without people fighting over producing, trading and consuming goods to the extreme.

Self interest goes almost hand in hand with economic freedom in that without economic freedom requires the pursuit of self interest. When Hayek talks about how a socialist economy it is saying that the government has self interest for itself rather than giving the people of that country self interest. This is the past what Hayek said is good for the people in that they do not have self interest. During the great depression in the dirty thirties, there was little self interest for the people in the United States. The government had to think of the whole rather than then individuals and so self interest was put on the back burner until the depression was over. The U.S. did implicate self interest before and after the great depression and so it had embraced self interest after the depression was over even though it was self interest that had caused the depression from people buying stuff that they want and did have the money the pay it off. Every country has its times when they are having issues and so it is sometimes better to think for the whole rather than for the different individual types. Self interest should be embraced until the country focuses primarily on the individuals and hardly on the whole group. When there is no self interest in place then there tends to be a self interest type of government. An example of this would be with Stalin and his government; they had put their needs and wants above the people of Russia which is inequality and which Hayek had stated. While there is an inequality then there is no self interest amongst the people and so self interest should be used by and for the people.

Hayek supported self interest and economic freedom for governments and when the principles are rejected then they should be embraced. If a country does not accept economic freedom then that limits what the people can produce, trade and consume and goods and services acquired which leads to economic issues for the people. Now if economic freedom is accepted then self interest is typically accepted since they mostly go hand in hand with each other. Self interest should be embraced until the government only uses it and does not give the citizens self interest and denies the people personal advantage. With self interest it can create official enforced inequality amongst the government and the people. Hayek proposed that a directed economy is no good for the people and that self interest and economic freedom should be used in its place along with other classical liberal principles.

IL 4

I think that Canada would be best run by a parlimentary (democratic) government. As a citizen in Canada, I was born and raised while Canada has been a parlimentary system and I have been pleased with the way how our government is run. I like the fact that the executive and legislative branch do not hold enough power to conqure anything they please and that every citizen (about the legal age of 18) has the right to vote and not fear the "consequences" of doing so; like in Afghanistan the Taliban cut off the arms of the people who have their finger covered in purple ink (after voting their finger is dipped in ink so they won't be able to vote again). But I digress back to the main issue: having a parilimentary system has worked pretty well for us Canadians. In Canada we have rights and freedoms and that allows us to really think about what is best for us and we approve of our parlimantary government.

IL 3