The logic of collective Action By Action Y.F

The logic of collective Action By Action
By Mancur Olsen


Some critics may argue that the rational person will, indeed, support a large organization, like a lobbying organization, that works in his interest, because he knows that if he does not, others will not do so either, and then the organization will fail, and he will be without the benefit that the organization could have provided. This argument shows the need for the analogy with the perfectly competitive market. For it would be quite as reasonable to argue that prices will never fall below the levels a monopoly would have charged in a perfectly competitive market, because if one firm increased its output, other firms would also, and the price would fall; but each firm could foresee this, so it would not start a chain of price-destroying increases in output. In fact, it does not work out this way in a competitive market; nor in a large organization. When the number of firms involved is large, no one will notice the effect on price if one firm increases its output, and so no one will change his plans because of it. Similarly, in a large organization, the loss of one dues payer will not noticeably increase the burden for any other one dues payer, and so a rational person would not believe that if he were to withdraw from an organization he would drive others to do so. 



In this paragraph it shows how a person support an organization not to loose on benefits that it has to offer. It states that when a number of firms increased its output, the price will fall but if the number of the firms involved its large no one will notice the effect on price if the firm it increases their output, as it states some people may argue the support of large organizations because if they do not others wont either. This paragraph describes the competitive market and the need for analogy.  

The Judiciary( Y.F)

The Judiciary 4/30

The judicial branch continues to play an important role in protecting the rights of minorities (whether it be business interests or ethnic/racial minorities), however it does raise the question of whether the courts are too independent of the majority will. With life terms for federal judges and the lack of any accountability to the populace through elections it is relatively easy for the courts to ignore or defy popular will. 

This paragraphs brings a lot to me since I'm a minority myself. Since the Judicial branch plays such an important role protecting the rights of minorities it makes me question? if everyone feels or does everyone agree on how much power the judicial branch should have. After all, federal judges and justices are appointed, not elected. As most Americans believe in democracy , shouldn't elected officials run the country.. On the other hand, perhaps Americans government would be fairer if judges had even more power. Because they do not have to worry about reelection, they are relieved of the outside pressure of public opinion. After all, the majority is not always right. It is no accident that the Founders provided for elected officials in the legislature and appointed officials in the judiciary. They believed that freedom, equality, and justice are best achieved by a balance between the two branches of government.

John F.Kennedy Speech (Yarisa Figueroa)

Inaugural Address of President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
January 20, 1961 




To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. 

I think this is such a powerful statement in John F. Kennedy speech states that we should pledge to help the people across the globe that are struggling. There are so many people around the world in poor countries that don't even have clean water to drink, food to eat and shelter to live in. In this statement he brings out that this 
is something we should be doing in general as human beings  not because communist are doing it or because we seek their votes.the world needs more people in society to want to help their fellow people and spread that positive energy and vibes  around the world. Some people in life just need a helping hand that can  lead them to something better. 

What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like. Yarisa Figueroa

What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like.

But these states don't show any discernible relationships between population, the number of seats in a congressional district and the extent of gerrymandering. Pennsylvania and New York have lost congressional seats over time. But Pennsylvania's gerrymandering scores have risen steadily, while New York's peaked around the 98th Congress and have been declining ever since. Texas has nearly doubled its congressional representation since 1950, and its gerrymandering average spiked in the 103rd Congress, dipped in the 108th, and shot back up in the 113th. Maryland's number of districts has been relatively flat, and its gerrymander scores have fluctuated considerably. 


This paragraph states that Pennsylvania and New York have lost congressional seats over time, but that New York peaked in at 98th Congress declining ever since. I think that a lot of that has to do with economy or maybe all the things that have being going on. The way things are now compared to 60 years ago are completely different. there are new laws, new regulations, new presidency and new things are have been created.  For some states things have fluctuated, stood flat or risen.