Position Paper 2

The extent to which we should support the suspension of universal rights and freedoms in order to guarantee the preservation of democracy

The author of this source believes in liberalism. He expresses that the preservation of democracy is more important than universal rights and freedoms, and that there are certain circumstances that call for the suspension of these rights and freedoms in order to preserve the democracy. The idea reflected in the source is one of collectivism; it proposes that individuals should make a sacrifice for the greater good of the nation.

In certain circumstances it is necessary to suspend the rights and freedoms of the people in order to protect them from losing those same rights and freedoms. It is acceptable for a liberal government to put a policy like this in place when a suitable situation arises, however the policy should under no circumstances be taken advantage of and used for purposes other than what it was originally intended for. Often the actual outcome of this suspension of rights and freedoms does not correspond with the proposed purpose of the initial action. A number of factors come into play when a government suspends the rights and freedoms of its people. Things such as a struggling economy and a nation of desperate or fear-stricken individuals can affect the outcome of such an act.

A good example of a time during which citizens’ rights and freedoms were suspended due to the circumstances, was the implementation of the Patriot Act in the US. After the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the government implemented the Patriot Act which was supposed to take away universal rights and freedoms of the citizens in order to protect the nation against terrorism. Because the United States had a relatively stable economy (compared to that of Nazi Germany) before this suspension of rights and freedoms, a democratic government will inevitably prevail. The implementation of the Patriot Act has not gone exactly as planned though; government officials and law enforcers have taken advantage of the power this act has given them. Because we naturally assume that terrorists have a certain phenotype, in practice the suspension of rights and freedoms is not universal. In theory, the Patriot Act would be an effective suspension of individual rights and freedoms to guarantee the preservation of democracy, but in practice the act is misused.

Another example of the suspension of the rights and freedoms of a nation’s citizens was during Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany. This example demonstrates a circumstance where the consequence of the suspension of rights and freedoms differs from the position expressed by the source. World War One left Germany in a state of despair; there was a high unemployment rate, a massive debt, and a sky-rocketing inflation rate. People were desperate for better times and Hitler promised just that with only one exception – the suspension of individual rights and freedoms. After being democratically elected, Hitler prevailed as an authoritarian figure and took advantage of his power over Germany. In this case the suspension of universal rights and freedoms did not guarantee the preservation of democracy; in fact it did just the opposite. The suspension of individual rights and freedoms in Nazi Germany resulted in an authoritarian government who exploited their power over the people.

These two examples demonstrate that there are certain times and circumstances that necessitate the suspension of individual rights and freedoms, and there are other times that such a suspension of rights and freedoms results in a negative outcome. In the proper situation it is acceptable for a liberal government to take away the rights and freedoms of the citizens in order to ensure that the people are safe and the democracy is preserved. There are many factors that determine the outcome of the suspension of individual rights and freedoms. Due to human nature, it cannot be guaranteed that the initial intentions of the suspension of individual rights and freedoms are followed, and therefore such an action must be more intensely policed so that it doesn’t result in unwanted consequences.

Social Portfolio

Review Guide:


1. To what extent should ideology be the foundation of identity?
Assignment that addresses the issue:
Witten response - perspectives on ideology


Graphic Organizer:
Mind Map - Collectivist or Individualist?


2. To what extent is resistance to liberalism justified?
Assignment that addresses the issue:
Prezi - Team Resistance


Graphic Organizer:
Philosopher organizer


3. To what extent are the principles of liberalism viable?
Assignment that addresses the issue:
Prezi - Aboriginal Experiences


Graphic Organizer:
Representation vs. Authority organizer




Vocabulary for all issues


Summative Assesment:


Practice Tests:
               On two of the practice exams that I completed I got 81% and 89%. I found that I had trouble interpreting some of the sources, which made it difficult to choose the best answer. I need to better understand the differences and connections between the various ideologies as well as study the contributions and viewpoints of the various philosophers we learned about this year. Overall I feel that I understand most of the material that I am expected to know and if I put some time into studying, I will do well on the Diploma exam.

Diploma writing assignments and reflections:

Witten response - perspectives on ideology
               Compared to some of my more recent writing assignments, I did not do very well on this written response. I lost marks because my interpretation of the sources was only proficient and I was satisfactory at explaining the relationships between the sources. I believe that I have improved a lot over the course of the year. I now understand the social studies concepts better and I have listened to all of the constructive criticism and advice I have gotten, which has made me better at interpreting and understanding material that is provided to me.



Position paper - economic freedom and self interest
                In my opinion – and according to the teacher’s comments – I did very well on this essay. I have learned from past writing assignments that it is extremely important to develop a position and use relevant supporting evidence. While writing this position paper I constantly thought about tying everything back to the controlling idea, which is something I have struggled with in the past.


General Items:


2 showcase items:
Contemporary Dictatorship - Egypt
The Cold War - The Cuban Missile Crisis


Bibliography:
bibliography

Visual/Presentation:
Visual Definition of Parliamentary Democracy
Prezi - Contemporary Rejection of Liberalism
Prezi - Team Resistance
Prezi - Aboriginal Experiences

Written Assignment - ideological perspectives and liberalism

The author of the first source clearly believes in collectivism. The perspective demonstrated by this source tells the reader that individuals should be free to pursue their own self interest without the fear of being taken advantage of due to competition. People should be fairly awarded for the work that they do and the talents and skills they have that let them do that work. The author is in favor of welfare capitalism and labour standards and unions; if these programs are put in place, people will be able to make use of their skills and talents in order to fearlessly pursue self interest.

The author of the second source strays towards the Right, clearly supporting the idea of capitalism. It is pointed out in this source that promoting economic equality would only result in more problems in the world. The author is arguing in favor of self interest, competition, and economic freedom by pointing out the flaws and consequences produced by rejecting these principles. If the government intervenes in order to flatten the economic hierarchy, everyone will lose; the result would be “to enforce domestic poverty and spread hunger around the globe.” On the other hand, if people are allowed to pursue self interest and competition by means of economic freedom, products can be effectively produced and world poverty and hunger can be avoided.

The third source also demonstrates a perspective of capitalism. The author of this political cartoon clearly believes that there should be an economic hierarchy in which there are rich people who are rich and poor people who are not rich. The characters in this cartoon seem angry and baffled that people at the bottom of the ladder can benefit without having worked for it, while they themselves have worked their whole lives to become rich and stay rich. It is apparent that the principle of economic freedom is supported in this source, and also that competition is needed to obtain the hierarchy produced by economic freedom.

These three sources – although having provided differing perspectives on some of the ways that society should work – have many similarities. All three of the sources agree that self interest is a beneficial way for people to make use of their skills in order to pursue happiness and economic success. The second and third sources have a lot more in common with each other than they do with the first source. The two latter sources share the perspective that capitalism is the ideology that would work best for society, and that economic freedom and competition are necessary principles to be implemented.

Position Paper

The extent to which we should embrace economic freedom and self interest

       Friedrich von Hayek is a classical liberal free market capitalist whose strong belief in the principles of economic freedom and self interest are clearly demonstrated in the provided source. The source demonstrates von Hayek’s disagreement with an economy which is directed by a socialist government. He also disagrees with the idea that the government should determine the status of each individual within a society, leaving no room for the individual to pursue their own self interest in order to move up or down on the ever-changing economic ladder.

       There have been many problems caused in the US and the Soviet Union by either too much or not enough embrace of economic freedom and self interest in combination with human greed. In the United States during the Great Depression, these two principles of classical liberalism were fully embraced, essentially resulting in the collapse of their economy. The Soviet economy also suffered, but unlike the US, it was due to their complete rejection of these two principles. Canada’s economy combines economic freedom and self interest with some additional principles of modern liberalism in order to achieve an effective system. The best amount of support of economic freedom and self interest in an economy is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum; we should neither completely accept nor reject these principles, but rather modify and add to them in order to gain optimal results.

       In the United States, the Great Depression caused many Americans to re-evaluate their thoughts on their country’s economic system. The United States is known for its unregulated, capitalist economy. This horrible economic depression demonstrated that a completely free market can be very harmful when it gets out of hand, or rather in the hands of the greedy. Some government regulation is necessary. The cause of the great depression was influenced by many factors, the biggest of which was an unregulated market in combination with uncontrollable debt and irresponsible investments. The condition of the United States’ economic system prior to the Great Depression displayed the principles of classical liberalism that Friedrich von Hayek supported in the source. The lack of any government control with regards to economic freedom and self interest is consistent with von Hayek’s views, but it is ultimately what caused the Great Depression. The responses to the Great Depression were to implement more regulation in the market, introduce a form of welfare capitalism, and stimulate the economy by creating public projects such as the construction of the Hoover Dam. These responses all demonstrate the obvious need for more government intervention in a free market economy, and the necessity to move away from classical liberalism and towards modern liberalism.

       The Soviet Union was the first country to adopt the system of an entirely directed economy. Under the control of Stalin, the Soviet Union suffered the consequences of this socialist economic structure. As Friedrich von Hayek implied in his quote, the rejection of economic freedom and self interest by a government striving toward equality results in just the opposite, “an officially enforced inequality”. Similar to the Great Depression in the United States, the main problem with the Soviet economy was caused by human greed. People have the tendency to want more than what they already have; to continuously strive for more power and money. This basic human trait is essentially the reason that Stalin, after successfully following the first two steps of Marxist Socialism, did not graciously retire to leave behind a self-governing, equal society. Stalin’s burning desire for more power sourced the ineffectiveness of the Soviet Union’s directed economic system. Stalin used his power to benefit himself and the people closest to him, eliminating any semblance of economic freedom or self interest in the country. In the provided source, Friedrich von Hayek was expressing the negative aspects of a socialist economic system like the one in the Soviet Union. Human greed causes neither the system of a directed economy, nor that of a free market economy to work effectively all of the time.

       After exploring both extremes of the economic spectrum and learning why neither one is completely effective, the conclusion can be made that an economic system which combines certain highlights from each system would work best. The Canadian economy combines the classical liberal principles of self interest and economic freedom, supported by von Hayek, with modern liberal principles such as welfare capitalism and labour standards and unions. Canada’s mixed economy works well to eliminate the consequences of the greed factor seen in the United States and the Soviet Union. For instance, during the 2007/2008 recession that hit North America as well as the rest of the world, Canada fared better than the US. Parameters have been implemented in the Canadian economic system to limit the effect that human greed has on society, where the United States’ system does not have any regulations. The lack of government control in the US economy caused the banks and big corporations there to require a bailout in order to prevent bankruptcy. In Canada on the other hand, the big corporations and banks were able to stay afloat without billions of dollars due to the policies in place which limited banks from giving out risky loans or lending money irresponsibly. Canada’s mixed economic system that combines principles of unregulated and directed economies nearly eliminates the consequences of the manipulation of the system due to human greed.

       Optimal results will be achieved when an economic system employs the classical liberal principles supported by von Hayek of self interest and economic freedom, but with slightly more government regulation and intervention. Ultimately, a successful economic system will shift away from the extremes – a completely unregulated economy in the United States or an entirely directed economy in the Soviet Union – towards a system that eliminates the greed factor and combines the best of both worlds. Ideally, there should be a mixed economy – such as in Canada – in which the principles of self interest and economic freedom are regulated by the government. This system allows the factor of human greed to be removed in order to achieve the most favorable economic system.

Parliamentary Democracy - a visual definition