Reconciliation Of Autonomy And Legitimate Authority Philosophy Essay

Reconciliation Of Autonomy And Legitimate Authority Philosophy Essay Political thought is deeply divided about the relationship between the individual and the community. The problem of the reconciliation of autonomy and legitimate authority is a moral one. Either I possess and am obliged to maintain my authority or I am not. Either I am totally part of my community and am obliged to serve it or I am not. Nobody ever doubted that in order to submit to some sort of authority it is necessary to sacrifice some of a persons personal autonomy  [2]  . However, many theorists argue that autonomy and the duty to obey someones commands can never co-exist. The greatest supporter of this conflict between authority and autonomy among the years has been Robert Paul Wolff. In his work In Defense of Anarchism he has insisted that there can never be a resolution between the conflict of autonomy and authority and that the only justifiable political system in virtue of autonomy is anarchism. But what exactly do these notions mean and how far is it true that the two theories can never be compatible? The Issue of Autonomy Autonomy is the right of a person to be free and the ability to choose his own actions without any constraints. For Wolff the fundamental assumption of moral philosophy is that men are responsible for their actions  [3]  . This responsibility means that a person should be responsible for taking the final decision for what she should do. Therefore, the autonomous person being autonomous does not accept commands from anyone and does not recognize any authority over him by anyone. His acts are based on his independent assessment of the situation and on nobody elses orders; has a self-regulating capacity and has a duty to take control of ones conduct. This responsibility of action means that people are metaphysically free and therefore the maintenance of autonomy is a duty. Non-interference is the most important element in political autonomy. In fact, Gaus specifies that the fundamental liberal principle is that all interferences with action stand in need of justification  [4]  . The idea of individual liberty for anarchists is inseparable fused with the theological doctrine that man has free will and can chose good or evil. Bakunin  [5]  defined freedom as following ones own reason and understanding justice. Therefore, law is rejected by anarchists because it is based on a false conception of free will and it usurps individual reason and morality. How far this statement is correct will be discussed later. The Issue of Political Obligation The central concept of political science is that of the state  [6]  . State legitimacy (or authority) is viewed as the logical correlate of the obligation of citizens to obey the law (or the state). This obligation is usually referred to as political obligation. Several questions arise from the issue of political obligation such as whether there is actually a prima facie obligation to obey the rules or why should we obey the law in general. However, this analysis is not the purpose of this essay and therefore these issues will not be further analyzed. An obligation is a requirement or duty to act in a particular way. The possession of a right usually places someone else under an obligation to uphold or respect that right  [7]  . The only theorists who are willing to reject completely the notion of political obligation are philosophical anarchists who insist on absolute respect for autonomy. Political obligation is a presumptive moral duty placed upon each and every individual in a given territory to obey all the laws enacted by the political institutions ruling the country. Political and legal institutions are authoritative institutions. Authority is the right to command, namely to order and therefore the right to be obeyed  [8]  ; it is the right to tell someone what to believe and how to act. The Conflict Theorists who support the conflict between autonomy and authority base their view on the fact that freedom is subordinated to an authority which creates regulations meant for protecting the bigger society. Therefore, people have to follow certain organizational ethics which may not be similar to their personal ethics. In order to have autonomy, individuals would just have to resort to choosing a company which holds values similar to their own. Taking responsibility means making the final decision about what to do, therefore there is no such thing as a command for the autonomous person. Political authority runs along with obligation to obey its rules, to follow it and disregard free will. But is this really true? There is a claim that political authority aims to impose its own judgement upon ours and that is illegitimate. When our judgment is incompatible with the law then, there is no obligation to obey the law and therefore, there can be no authority upon us. As long as a man fulfil ls his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions he will not accept any authority over him therefore, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws. It has been said that we have the capacity to choose how to act. Still, this is not enough for one to take responsibility for his actions. Obligation to take responsibility for ones actions does not derive from the actors freedom of choice. Only because the actor has the capacity to reason about his choices can be said that he is held under a continuous obligation to take responsibility for them. For Kant moral autonomy is a combination of freedom and responsibility  [9]  . Hence a responsible person is bound by any moral constraints he only should be the judge of them. It is possible to listen to the advice of others but in the end he will make the decision on his own by making sure for himself that it is a good advice  [10]  . Therefore, there may be moral reasons for obeying the law but this does not imply a duty to obey the laws just because they are the laws. It rather shows a prima facie duty to obey the laws like that of keeping promises. The Anarchists Argument Following the neo-Kantian argument that people have a responsibility and a duty to act autonomously, political obligation is consistently illegitimate because it claims to replace any individual judgment. Kant supported that private judgment is more important than anything else and the welfare of single individuals should be above the need for some sort of authority. Based on this argument Robert Wolff in his work In Defense of Anarchism analyses the issue of how can moral autonomy ever be made compatible with political authority. He concludes that no comprehensive claim to political authority can be justified since it is incompatible with the requirement to act autonomously. Therefore according to Wolff, autonomy and political authority are genuinely incompatible. Yet, Kant himself does not imply in his use of the word autonomy any denial of the authoritativeness of the law. Wolff believes that the most appropriate model of society is where there are mutual agreements between indivi duals who are doing something because they want to do it and not by submitting to authority. Anarchism opposes the belief that authority and hierarchy are necessary in social relationships and argues for a society where authority and hierarchy are not needed. The most basic distinction between anarchist theories is that between a priori anarchism, which maintains that all possible states are morally illegitimate and a posteriori anarchism, which maintains that while all existing state are illegitimate this is not because it is impossible for there to be a legitimate state  [11]  . There are two forms of anarchism. Political anarchism is divided into anarcho-collectivism, which focuses on the basic criteria of justice such as equality, fraternity and solidarity, and anarcho- individualism supports individual sovereignty and insists that no institution is entitled to restrict individual freedom. On the other hand philosophical anarchism does not only attack the state but follows the view that the very idea of legitimate political authority is inexistent. Therefore, no huma n being can rightfully exercise any authority over another individual and everyone should act based on their assessment of the situation. Wolffs philosophical anarchism supports that no authority possessed by a de facto authority is legitimate and therefore there is no way to establish any political obligation  [12]  . Anarchists attack the idea of legitimate authority in order to satisfy the statement of no compatibility. Wolffs version of philosophical anarchism is a good example of a priori anarchism. Wolff maintains that the authority which states must exercise is inconsistent with the autonomy of individuals that any legitimate state would have to respect  [13]  . They would have to comply with the law because it is the law but when someone complies with the law because it is the law then he forfeits his moral freedom; the liberty that each of us has to make his own mind about what he ought to do. Hence, the concept of a de jure legitimate state would appear to be vacuous  [14]  . Anarchist judgments of state illegitimacy are typically taken to entail that subjects of those illegitimate states have no political obligations. Accordingly, all subjects of all states are at moral liberty to treat laws as non-binding and governments as non-authoritative  [15]  . Anarchists reach the con clusion that no government can be legitimate. Either we must be anarchists, or we must surrender our autonomy to whatever authority seems best at the moment. On Wolffs view contractual democracies are legitimate states but they gain their legitimacy through their citizens sacrifice of their autonomy. Henry Thoreau insisted that no individual should sacrifice his or her conscience to the judgment of politicians, elected or otherwise. This position denies that government can ever exercise rightful authority over the individual. In fact for Wolff no government is inherently or a priori better than another one, therefore, there is no reason why people should prefer a democracy to a dictatorship. In either case they lose their autonomy  [16]  . However, this view is not supported by everyone. As mentioned above doing something because it is the law (like arguing for a prima facie obligation to obey the law) is not sufficient reason of obedience. Then how about democracy? In a democratic society the citizen is both law giver and law maker, therefore autonomy is preserved as it is the citizen who authorizes the laws to which later he is required to submit to  [17]  . Wolff claims that democracy has no claim in the conflict because the person who finds himself in the minority rejects the alternative [when he voted] to find it forced upon him by a superior power. His will to be autonomous is frustrated because the will of the majority is placed upon him. However, the individual may recognize a moral obligation to obey the law but consider it to be a prima facie obligation. Since he reserves to himself in every case the decision whether the prima facie obligation is conclusive, then it can be said that he has reserved to himself the final decision as to whether to cooperat e  [18]  . On the other hand, Robert Nozick in his work Anarchy, State and Utopia welcomes an argument in favour of a minimal state  limited to the narrow functions of protection against theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on. When a State takes on more responsibilities than these, Nozick says, rights will be violated.  In an effort  to  make a case for  the idea of a minimal State, Nozick illustrates that the minimalist State arises naturally from anarchy and that any expansion of State power  beyond this minimalist threshold is unjustified.   Legitimate authority and political obligation are considered to be two sides of the same coin. For a state to be legitimate means that it has the right to issue and enforce directives. However, this is only possible if citizens are under a political obligation. As Simmons stated, if citizens do not have a prima facie obligation to obey the law then their governments do not have a right to promulgate and enforce it  [19]  . However, it does not follow that when a person is under political obligation that he should always obey the law. If this political obligation is prima facie then, does not this mean that moral considerations should always be taken into account when assessing the right course of action? If this is acceptable then there is not necessarily a conflict between political obligation and free will as a person must take into account his own considerations. One can have strong moral reasons for complying with directives issued by his government without owing any obligati ons to that government. But if we suppose that political obligation does not exist then what follows? A person can have moral constraints but as an autonomous man he should be the one deciding on these constraints. For example he can do what someone tells him but not because he told him; he must not submit to the will of others. In the same sense he may obey the law but not because it is the law  [20]  . The duty to support the commonwealth implies a state of servitude which essentially is the requirement to obey commands, the nature of which is not known at the time the obligation is undertaken  [21]  . John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty asserted that the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to other  [22]  . In Mills view the law has no right to interfere with self-regarding actions; in his realm individuals are entitled to exercise unrestrained liberty. Lord Acton in his essays stated that liberty alone demands for its realization the limitation of public authority, fo r liberty is the only object which benefits all alike and provokes sincere opposition. Of course he was not an anarchist and this distinction is obvious as he speaks of limiting authority; an anarchist would speak of abolishing authority. When Wolff says constrained only by the dictated of his own will he means bound only by any prior commitments. Bakunin, an anarchist, stresses that the absence of any restraints or interferences is essential to liberty; that a persons human right consist in not obeying any other human being and not allow his actions to be determined by anyone but his own convictions  [23]  . For him the state is the evil but it was historically necessary. Socrates suggested that there is a need to obey the commands (laws) of the polis. The commonwealth made Socrates free and he was arguing that he had a duty not to destroy or injure institutions which had made him free. However, even if the state made him free some flexibility is required by an institution in order for the individual to learn making the right choices and look for alternatives. Socrates argued that the duty to be autonomous and take responsibility for our actions does not abrogate our duty to be loyal to the state. Instead, our du ty of loyalty to the laws is valid only if our duty to be autonomous is. However, as long as the sphere of authority expands, liberty is necessarily constrained. Authority can be seen as a threat to reason and critical understanding since it demands unconditional, unquestioning obedience  [24]  . The critics and a solution to the problem There are a number of critics who have argued that there is no necessary conflict between autonomy and authority. According to these critics, a morally autonomous individual takes responsibility for his actions by entering a reflective process in which he takes the final decision. But, individuals can still do this and then decide that they ought to follow the legitimate authorities. Therefore, there is no necessary conflict between the two. Plamenatz argued about a solution of the conflict  [25]  . He gave a modern version of consent as justification of political obligation. More concretely, he argued that in voting people consent to obey whoever is elected and that a vote constitutes a promise of obedience to the next government. Therefore, basically he argued for free will in deciding who to vote and taking responsibility of actions by accepting the result of the voting. An argument against this theory would be that it is irrational to consent in advance to whatever a government might do unless it was strictly specified in a manifesto whose terms would not be exceeded  [26]  . By accepting the democratic system Plamenatz argues people also undertake the obligation to obey a government they have not voted for. Some could argue that it would be better to have free conscience rather than voting. The consent theory tries to make political obligation a result of free choice but then it over-interprets our act as vo ters to fill us with extensive moral obligations  [27]  . Joseph Raz argues than an individual could have a duty to obey the law without having been bound himself to obey it. He argues that a person would have a duty to obey the law if it is most likely that he would do what he ought by obeying the law rather than following his independent judgment  [28]  . However, by doing this it is not necessarily taking responsibility of his action but rather following someone else abdicated responsibility for his own actions  [29]  . Individuals should act autonomously and since obeying someone else means he sees himself and his actions as someone elses responsibility, then someone would assume that no one could have a duty to obey anyone else. On the other hand, it could be argued that, this argument is not entirely correct. While someone obeying the law in this way is not exactly acting autonomously in doing so he may act responsibly. Although the individual does not judge for himself what the right thing to do is, he may judge if he should obey the law because by doing that he will be able to come closer to doing what he ought to do. Therefore, one could conclude that, a responsible subject follows the law not only for moral reasons but also as a result of his own deliberation  [30]  . Wolff, as well as other anarchists, would argue that by acting against your own evaluations is like doing what you believe to be wrong and that is impermissible. However, since any judgment about what to do rely on judgments about the likely consequences of ones possible actions, one may regard others as more competent than oneself at determining the consequences. Since he regards other evaluations better than his own then, one may rea sonably act on these instead of his own. Therefore, it is reasonable for an individual to obey someone elses dictates (i.e. the states) when they conflict with his own judgment. Otherwise, would it mean that when there is a clash between the demands of the state and the private interests or moral convictions of the people that disobedience should occur  [31]  ? Rawls in his work A theory of Justice he stated that sometimes civil disobedience may be justified since it depends upon the theory of political obligation  [32]  . There is an obligation to support just and efficient institutions which arises from our voluntary acts. Rawls assumes the social contract as a basis of political obligation and expresses that principles of justice should be those which free and rational men would agree to in an original position of equal liberty. Civil disobedience is non-violent and is justified as an attempt addressed to those holding the political power to correct any injustice. The exercise of authority is only appropriate when exercised in accordance with a constitution capable of being reasonably endorsed by the citizens. So can moral autonomy be compatible with political authority? Can the conflict be resolved and a solution be found? Since authority is the right to command and be obeyed and autonomy is the capacity to self-regulate ones actions there seems to be no compatibility between them. For Rousseau, human beings want to be free but at the same time they want the benefits of living in a society. But is it possible to find a form of association that defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate and by means of uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before?  [33]   For Rousseau his theory of Social Contract is a solution for this conflict. Since the whole citizen is the sovereign it cannot have any interests contrary to the interests of the individuals who comprise it.  [34]  Jeffrey Reiman in an attempt to prove Wolff wrong by arguing for the legitimacy of classical democracy, he also supports the social contract arg ument. Classical anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin rejected the claims of political obligation; however, they recognized that a healthy society demands sociable, cooperative and respectful behaviour from its members  [35]  . Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed democracy as the most important means through which humans can achieve freedom or autonomy in the sense of obedience to a law one subscribes to oneself  [36]  . He insisted that citizens are only free when they participate directly and continuously in their communities. Individuals are only free when they make the laws which they obey. Is the conflict and incompatibility real? In conclusion, it appears that when autonomy is the duty of free will and responsibility of actions and political obligation is the duty to obey the law and therefore the obligatory imposition of rules upon citizens, there can be no co-existence between the two. By being autonomous it means to not accept any form of authority upon you and therefore no authority can be seen to be legitimate. Although, anarchists support this idea, many theorists are of the view that there can be compatibility between the two even if a level of autonomy needs to be sacrificed in order to accept authority and ensure security. If a state was not necessary then it would not have been created since every state is the creation of man. Political obligation is only a theory developed in order for a state to exist and function in a proper way. When even the greatest supporters of the conflict between the two theories such as Wolff depart from this long-supported theory of antinomy  [37]  it seems difficul t to support this anarchistic view of incompatibility and it is considered as an over-exaggeration of the issue.

clear channel :: essays research papers

Clear Channel   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ever turn on the radio and hear the same five songs over and over again? You can thank clear channel for that. According to a study conducted last summer the top songs are played more than 85 times between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. and only add around 15 songs a week giving the most air time to the largest sum accepted in the promotional payment contract. In blunt terms it is the illegal practice of payola which allows goods and/or money to be exchanged for air time. But Clear channel has managed to cut corners through indies who are hired by a record label to get stations to play certain songs. Included in their promotional payment contract the musical artist must agree to perform at a Clear Channel concert with in a certain time frame such as Jingle ball held in Philadelphia. This practice leaves little room for an independent artist to be heard on air because of their lack of a middle man; an indie, as well as, the money needed upfront to form a promotional payment contract that ranges around six figures. The abandonment of independent artists is an example of negative synergy. In regards to the contract, the record label’s client not only agrees to perform but also to advertise clear channel stations through voice tracking. Wit the help of a computer assisted voice segments the listener is fooled into believeing the program is locally produced when it is not because the same basic phrase is broadcasted to seventy five other stations. For example you will hear your favorite musician say a phrase like â€Å" Hello Allentown† on one station and in California the same musician is broadcasted to be saying â€Å"Hello L.A.† Voice tracking is not only evident through celebrities but also from radio personalities and their programs. For example Rush Limbaugh is not only broadcasted in Pennsylvania but also Texas. This however violates the communication Act of 1934 where the FCC encourages a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy. The multi broadcasted programs such as Limbaugh and Dr. Laura leave their audience with a one sid ed republican view. Born from the same state Enron and Clear Channel both faced the Department of Justice investigation, lawsuits for inappropriate business practices, and they both currently have a bill in Congress to border their impact on their industry. The only difference is that Clear Channel is getting away with their monopolistic corporation and scandals. clear channel :: essays research papers Clear Channel   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ever turn on the radio and hear the same five songs over and over again? You can thank clear channel for that. According to a study conducted last summer the top songs are played more than 85 times between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. and only add around 15 songs a week giving the most air time to the largest sum accepted in the promotional payment contract. In blunt terms it is the illegal practice of payola which allows goods and/or money to be exchanged for air time. But Clear channel has managed to cut corners through indies who are hired by a record label to get stations to play certain songs. Included in their promotional payment contract the musical artist must agree to perform at a Clear Channel concert with in a certain time frame such as Jingle ball held in Philadelphia. This practice leaves little room for an independent artist to be heard on air because of their lack of a middle man; an indie, as well as, the money needed upfront to form a promotional payment contract that ranges around six figures. The abandonment of independent artists is an example of negative synergy. In regards to the contract, the record label’s client not only agrees to perform but also to advertise clear channel stations through voice tracking. Wit the help of a computer assisted voice segments the listener is fooled into believeing the program is locally produced when it is not because the same basic phrase is broadcasted to seventy five other stations. For example you will hear your favorite musician say a phrase like â€Å" Hello Allentown† on one station and in California the same musician is broadcasted to be saying â€Å"Hello L.A.† Voice tracking is not only evident through celebrities but also from radio personalities and their programs. For example Rush Limbaugh is not only broadcasted in Pennsylvania but also Texas. This however violates the communication Act of 1934 where the FCC encourages a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy. The multi broadcasted programs such as Limbaugh and Dr. Laura leave their audience with a one sid ed republican view. Born from the same state Enron and Clear Channel both faced the Department of Justice investigation, lawsuits for inappropriate business practices, and they both currently have a bill in Congress to border their impact on their industry. The only difference is that Clear Channel is getting away with their monopolistic corporation and scandals.

Grapes of Wrath Essay: Prejudice Against Immigrants Exposed :: Grapes Wrath essays

The Grapes of Wrath: The Californians Prejudice Against Immigrants Prejudice is a strong word. It is the kind of word that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. One of Steinbeck's themes in the novel, The Grapes of Wrath, is the prejudice against the migrant workers by the financially established Californians. Steinbeck provides four clear examples of prejudice; the man whose children died of starvation, the fishing story, the California police officer and the history of the Californians. On the way to California, the Joad's encountered other people that had already been to California and were now returning. One of these encounters, with the ragged man with the sunburned face, is described on page 242. The ragged man had children that died because wages were too low and work was too scarce to afford food for his children and wife. His story was one of pain and despair and was evidence of the cruel and inhumane treatment which resulted from the California farmers prejudice towards the migrant workers. Later, the Joads stop by a river where Tom and his Father find a spot to go swimming. Two men, a man and his son, who asked if they might also join them in swimming, promptly join them. The men start talking and it turns out that the other two men have just come from California. They tell a story describing the conditions as very unsafe and uncomfortable and mention the prejudice against the workers. Subsequently the Joads paid no head to this warning either. Hence, they traveled on, only to meet up with a very dispassionate police officer. The police officer gave the Joads a first hand experience of the prejudice that Californians had against the migrant workers. The policeman treated the migrants with no respect. This officer, who undoubtedly had taken an oath to uphold the law and promote the public good, would have been more happy see the Joads drop off the face of the earth than see them in California. The Corollary chapter Nineteen deals with the history of California. How it was settled by the feverish Americans. Through these descriptions we can start to understand the Californians prejudice against the migrant workers. The chapter describes the initial owners of the land, the Mexicans, as being "weak and fed". This description would suggest that the Mexican's were like well fed livestock. Grapes of Wrath Essay: Prejudice Against Immigrants Exposed :: Grapes Wrath essays The Grapes of Wrath: The Californians Prejudice Against Immigrants Prejudice is a strong word. It is the kind of word that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. One of Steinbeck's themes in the novel, The Grapes of Wrath, is the prejudice against the migrant workers by the financially established Californians. Steinbeck provides four clear examples of prejudice; the man whose children died of starvation, the fishing story, the California police officer and the history of the Californians. On the way to California, the Joad's encountered other people that had already been to California and were now returning. One of these encounters, with the ragged man with the sunburned face, is described on page 242. The ragged man had children that died because wages were too low and work was too scarce to afford food for his children and wife. His story was one of pain and despair and was evidence of the cruel and inhumane treatment which resulted from the California farmers prejudice towards the migrant workers. Later, the Joads stop by a river where Tom and his Father find a spot to go swimming. Two men, a man and his son, who asked if they might also join them in swimming, promptly join them. The men start talking and it turns out that the other two men have just come from California. They tell a story describing the conditions as very unsafe and uncomfortable and mention the prejudice against the workers. Subsequently the Joads paid no head to this warning either. Hence, they traveled on, only to meet up with a very dispassionate police officer. The police officer gave the Joads a first hand experience of the prejudice that Californians had against the migrant workers. The policeman treated the migrants with no respect. This officer, who undoubtedly had taken an oath to uphold the law and promote the public good, would have been more happy see the Joads drop off the face of the earth than see them in California. The Corollary chapter Nineteen deals with the history of California. How it was settled by the feverish Americans. Through these descriptions we can start to understand the Californians prejudice against the migrant workers. The chapter describes the initial owners of the land, the Mexicans, as being "weak and fed". This description would suggest that the Mexican's were like well fed livestock.

Romeo and Juliet Movie versus Play :: Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

One of the most celebrated plays in history, â€Å"Romeo and Juliet†, was written by William Shakespeare in the late 16th century. It is a story about two lovers that have to meet in secret because of an ongoing family feud. Tragically, because of their forbidden love Romeo and Juliet take their lives so they can be together. In 1997, a movie was adapted from the play â€Å"Romeo and Juliet†, directed by Baz Lurhmann. However, as alike as the movie and the play are, they are also relatively different. Paramount aspect of the movie and the play, the theme, were the same, and the overall messages in both were the same. For example, one main message in the stories was that love conquers all. This was demonstrated in both the play and the film when Romeo and Juliet kept secretly meeting each other even though they knew it was against their families’ wishes. In one scene of both the movie and the play Romeo and Juliet even got married and died together so that even if they could not be together on earth they would be together in death. Another message you learn from watching the movie and the play was that fighting solves nothing. In the play, when the two feuding families, the Montague’s and the Caplets, find their children dead they resolve their differences and agree to build a gold statue of Romeo and Juliet made out of gold after they state that their fighting only brought suffering. In the movie, although the families didn’t make up, you can infer that it wa s if the families and not been fighting that Romeo and Juliet would not have killed themselves, because they would not have to meet in secret and have Friar Lawrence devise a complicated plan so they could be together without their parents knowledge . Even though the themes were similar, the plot of the movie and the play were rather different. In the movie, Mercutio, Romeo’s friend, got an invitation to Lord Caplet’s ball where Romeo and Juliet meet, but in the movie Romeo and this friends go to Lord Capulet’s party uninvited. What's more, is that when Romeo was at the ball he was recognized by Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin, from the sound of his voice in the play, but in the movie Tybalt sees him. In addition to that one scene where Juliet was hysterical because she thought Romeo was dead was completely absent in the movie.

Lifestyle Segmentation

Cryptographic segmentation Consumer Attitudes Behaviors Perceptions Interests Reasoning: Pricing, Location of dealers, advertising all suggests that the car buying experience can be divided into demographics of lifestyle segmentation of the area. Jaguar, Lexus, Mercedes and BMW dealers tend to be located in areas where people care what they drive and perceive the nicer the car shows status. I live In Climate Falls. We have snow and they put rocks down when It snows.I have en two Mercedes since have lived here 7 years. People don't hold status In cars the way they do In Orange County. This Is a cow town. People use trucks. They haul things, they tow things. They hit deer in the road. When they have the dealer showcase at the Fairgrounds all of the nice diesel trucks are right up front, all shiny and polished. If you don't drive a truck, you drive some sort of more economical family car, whether it be a minivan, or a sedan, or SUB. The billboards here in town all have Trucks or Subs on them.You go to our parking lot at work and almost half re trucks. There are no luxury car dealers here in town. We have Ford, Honda, Toyota, Suburb, Jeep and Dodge. The trucks are very nice though and even have the newest features. You go to a parking lot In Southern California, and you find a myriad of sedans. They even hold opening parties at the Mercedes Benz dealers to showcase the newest cars. People spend more time in traffic in Southern California than they do here in Climate Falls. They want a cushy luxury car that they can spend that time. The parking spaces are smaller.They are more people, less room for big huge trucks. People in Southern California are also more concerned with their looks and how other perceive each other. Their nice vehicle is a status symbol. (If you don't believe that, look at all the tanned skinny people at the beaches and tell me they aren't into looks) Where I grew up in Southern California, we had all the luxury dealers within 15 miles. And the b illboards? Those showed the latest and greatest luxury car. Even the less expensive cars such as the Haunted have modeled their cars to look like luxuryThis segmentation model has been successful for each group. I would Like to say having a car is not a necessity, but in today's world it is in most places. People who and find a vehicle that will fit their lifestyle. Segmenting in this manner allows them to choose which cars to market in that area. I would market a Jaguar in Climate Falls, and I wouldn't market an 850 with a huge cow guard and diesel engine in Southern California. This allows them to also make sure their inventory backs the demand in the area.

By Choice or Chance Essay

By Choice or Chance? The Boat English 12 Alex McDonald The Boat written by Alistair MacLeod, is a story told from the perspective of a man looking back on his life. It’s about the difficult lifestyle that fishermen in Nova Scotia lead. The story is told about the man’s childhood, focusing on this father and the fishing lifestyle he has grown up in. The story really focuses in on the father-son relationship, where the father would prefer his son getting an education and not having to live the dangerous lifestyle he does, which in the end kills him. The father in the story commits suicide at the end of the story by jumping off his boat durning a storm. Many things contribute to his death such as the fact that he no longer wanted his son to follow in his footsteps as a fisherman, he was never really meant to be a fisherman in general and all together the father was just not happy with his life. The father never wanted his son to follow in his footsteps and become a fisherman. He had always wanted his son to be able to go and get an education, unlike him. He burned and reburied over and over again and his lips still cracked so that they bled when he smiled, and his arms, especially the left, still broke out into the oozing salt-water boils as they did ever since as a child I had first watched him soaking and bathing them in a variety of ineffectual solutions. The chafe-preventing brackets of brass kinked chain that all the men wore about their wrists in early spring were his full season and he shaved but painfully and only once a week. â€Å"(Page 121). The father is obviously unhappy and cannot find any other way out of his lifestyle. In this story the father does not lead a very happy life, from the disappointment of his career, to his family. All of his children except his son no longer lived at home, or even visit, his wife was constantly unhappy with her own life which took a toll on him and the two other reasons already discussed made the father unhappy. â€Å"He had to marry my mother and checked the dates on the flyleaf of the Bible where I learned that my oldest sister had been born a prosaic eleven months after the marriage, and I felt myself then very dirty and debased for my lack of faith and for what I had thought and done. And then there came into my heart a very great love for my father and I thought it was very much braver to spend a life doing what you really do not want rather than selfishly following forever your own dreams and inclinations. And I knew then that I could never leave him alone to suffer the iron-tipped harpoons which my mother would forever hurl into his soul because he was a failure as a husband and a father who had retained none of his own. And I felt that I had been very small in a little secret place within me and that even the completion of high school was for me a silly shallow selfish dream. So I told him one night very resolutely and very powerfully that I would remain with his as lng as he lived and we would fish the sea together. And he made no protest but only smiled through the cigarette smoke that wreathed his bed and replied,† â€Å"I hope you will remember what you’ve said†(121-122) This quote is where you start to realize that the author is foreshadowing the suicide of the father, so at the end it is no wonder he finial decides to end his life of suffering through a job he hated and his son’s. The father is just so unhappy with his life that he cannot deal with it anymore. He hates seeing his son become the man he is. The perfect place to end his life in his eyes is on the boat he was bound to for so many years. The father commits suicide because he no longer wants his son to have to follow in is footsteps as a fisherman, he was never meant to be a fishermen, and in general he was just not happy with his life.

Law Enforcement, Prison, and Race Essay

The facts are indisputable and have been widely published for years. People of color in the United States are extremely over-represented in the prison population as well as in the number of arrests. While the facts are not in question, what is under debate is the reason why these numbers exist. Just as in a legal case, both sides of the issue have their own experts who provide testimony to support their viewpoint. On one side – which is by far the most publicized – is the belief that the reason why more minorities (especially African Americans) are arrested and imprisoned is a result of racial prejudice. However, the opposing viewpoint states that there is a very logical reason why more African Americans are involved with the judicial system – they simply commit more crimes than whites. Both sides provide mounds of data and studies to support their argument. Although it is not scientific, I believe where there is smoke there is probably fire. More than likely, there is some form of prejudice involved. Thinking the sides of this issue are divided strictly by color lines would be a mistake. Walter Williams (who is black) used the following figures in The Washington Times to prove his point that police are not prejudice, â€Å"†¦ 63 percent of the 65,624 drug arrests were minorities (50 percent blacks and 13 percent Hispanics). Since blacks are only 13 percent of the total population, it means law enforcement officials can assign a higher probability that a drug trafficker is a black more so than other racial groups† (Williams). Indeed, Mr. Williams – as well as many others – believe that such statistics show that police are simply doing their jobs by stopping black motorists more often than whites, since more of them are probably drug dealers. But does such reasoning hold up in the light of other statistics that are just as telling? For example, studies by Human Rights Watch have shown that most drug offenders are white and that five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. However, blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison (â€Å"Racial Disparitiesâ€Å"). So, which set of numbers do you accept? The answer is, you do not have to choose since both can be used – and should be – to find the truth. Considering that whites make up some 75% of the population, while blacks comprise 13%, the fact that five times as many whites use drugs as blacks seems logical. If that is the case, then how can the excessive number of blacks arrested on drug charges be anything other than racially prejudiced? The very terminology used by some to describe the theories used by each side seems to sound judgmental. For instance, according to D’Alessio, Stewart, and Stolzenberg, the term ‘conflict theory’ is used to describe the belief that the elevated arrest rate for black citizens is the consequence of discrimination by police (1381). However, they use the term ‘normative theory’ to describe the belief that those numbers are simply the result of social issues that affect blacks more than whites. Whatever name it is given, the idea that blacks are more likely to commit crimes due to experiencing more difficult social conditions is becoming more widely popular. Writing for Social Forces, a University of North Carolina publication, D’Alessio, Stewart, and Stolzenberg asserted regarding their study of racial bias, â€Å"The results of this study suggest that the disproportionately high arrest rate for black citizens is most likely ascribable to differential criminal participation in reported crime rather than to racially biased law enforcement practicesâ€Å" (1381). Once again – just as with the study involving drug arrests cited earlier – blacks are arrested more because they commit more crimes. Their findings were based on data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System of 1999. Studies such as these invariably cast a large portion of blame on the media for perpetrating what they believe to be the ’myth’ of racial prejudice in law enforcement. Certainly it is true that a higher percentage of blacks suffer from the poor social conditions that often lead to delinquent behavior, such as unemployment, crowded housing conditions, poor health care, and less access to preventative social services. But, while that is true it does not explain other disparities in the criminal justice system that cannot be explained away so easily. Based on the results of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Report of 1999, a black youthful offender is six times more likely to be jailed than a youthful offender who is white, even if they commit the same crimes and have the same criminal backgrounds, according to a nationwide study (â€Å"Study Revealsâ€Å"). The following comment is typical of the response to the report. â€Å"We find that this report leaves no doubt that we are faced with a very serious national civil rights issue, virtually making our system juvenile injustice,† said Hugh B. Price, President and CEO of the National Urban League (Crowley). No matter what set of statistics are used, the reality is that minorities are treated differently at every level in the justice system. Beginning as juveniles, with their first contact with police, minorities can be sent down one of two paths. They can be sent into some type of counseling, or they can be processed into the system. According to a report in The Cincinnati Enquirer, institutional bias regarding who will be referred to private treatment (i. e. ; counseling services) instead of being formally processed also disfavors minorities. Even when other variables are accounted for, minority young males – particularly African Americans – are significantly more likely to be detained than white youths (Crowley). Such reports continue to beg the question: even if we accept that the reason more blacks are originally arrested is simply because they commit more crimes and not due to any police bias, how do we explain the irregularities in the sentencing process? Whether it is blatant prejudice or some other reason, it is clear that something is happening in the courts that cannot easily be explained away. Another issue that needs to be addressed is regarding the purpose for certain laws being passed in the first place. In The New American Apartheid, it is asserted, â€Å"Many sentencing structures have a built-in class and racial bias. This is especially the case with drug laws, which have always targeted mainly the drugs used by minorities and the poor throughout history† (Sheldon and Brown). If the police are simply doing their jobs by enforcing drug laws, and innocently arrest mostly blacks, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that some laws have been passed that target blacks. The evidence of discrimination even extends to the ultimate punishment – the death penalty. It has been widely assumed by the general public that the rationale for pursuing the death penalty in cases – and an execution being ordered – is based primarily on the brutality of the crime or number of victims. If that were true, the death penalty would seem far less arbitrary. However, there is no consistent pattern that can be found in any state or federal court to make that case. Instead, it is just as likely – in fact more so – that a poor black man will be executed for the murder of one white person than a white man receiving the death penalty for serial murders. A perfect example is Gary Leon Ridgeway (who is white), known as the ’Green River Killer’. Although he has acknowledged killing over 48 people, he pleaded guilty to escape the death penalty. Contrast that with the case of Gerald Lee Mitchell (who was black), executed in 2001 for a murder he committed when he was 17 years old. The attorney for Mitchell argued that at the time of the murder Mitchell had an IQ of 75 and had been diagnosed as functioning on the borderline level of retardation. He was put to death in spite of calls for clemency from numerous countries, world leaders, and even the president of the American Bar Association. (â€Å"Execution of Child Offenderâ€Å") One of the few exceptions to this trend was Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City. However, I believe he is the exception that proves the rule. While much data that has been collected is hardly productive, there are places where meaningful progress has been made against racial prejudice. This is generally areas where comprehensive data collection and reporting has occurred. Without data, every complaint of discrimination inevitably boils down to one person’s word against a police officer’s. This is the reason that civil rights advocates are demanding that police be required to keep racial and ethnic data on who is stopped and searched as a basis for eliminating the biased police behavior. Unfortunately, a person can still choose to see his or her own side of the issue despite evidence to the contrary. Prejudice comes in many forms. While it is hard to imagine many judges consciously weighing a decision of whether to have someone executed or not based solely on race, the fact remains that such decisions have been, and are being made. Bias or prejudice can also be a subtle, even subconscious motivation that a person may not even aware of. A judicial system can be only as just and dependable as the people who design and administer it. People are prone to error, dishonesty, and prejudice. Although the blatantly racist cops that used to be around many years ago are no doubt few and far between today, there still is something at work in the legal system that seems to be detrimental to blacks. From laws that target ethnic neighborhoods and individuals, to how decisions are made regarding arrests and prosecutions, a racially biased trail of evidence does emerge. From who gets sentenced to probation to who gets sent to prison, blacks are unfairly being targeted. From length of sentences to who lives or dies, it cannot be denied that prejudice exists in the legal system of this country. Despite arguments to the contrary, and no matter what type of research or studies the supporters of ‘normative theory’ conduct, the facts speak for themselves. Clearly, it has been shown that people of color in the United States are extremely over-represented in the prison population as well as in the number of arrests due, in large part, to biased or prejudicial attitudes and perceptions of many people in law enforcement and the judicial system. Such practices have no place in a country that promises justice for all people – regardless of color. Efforts should continue at every level of government to change this pervasive mindset, until race has absolutely no bearing on how an individual is treated in America. Works Cited D’Alessio, S. J. and Stolzenberg, L. â€Å"Race and the Probability of Arrest† Social Forces. Vol. 81 Issue 4, p1381 June 2001 Crowley, Patrick . â€Å"Study reveals ‘juvenile injustice’, Minorities are jailed more often†. The Cincinnati Enquirer. 26 April 2000 â€Å"Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs† Human Rights Watch. Online. 9 Nov. 2005 Shelden, R. and Brown, W. B. â€Å"The New American Apartheid Part I†. 22 June 2004 Williams, Walter. â€Å"Racial Profiling Puzzle†. The Washington Times. Creators Syndicate, Inc. 14 March 1999