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. 

what is a slave to the forth of July ( Yarisa Figueroa)

What is a slave to the fourth of July?( Frederick Douglass)

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!


This frederick Douglass speech is personally one of my favorite speeches from this powerful man. He made this speech allowing the American people to see that the Forth of july was not a celebrtion for him and all the slaves that were capitive in slavery. he did the speech first congradulating America on the Fourth of  July but got into the indepth of how he sees Independence day.He said that there are problems between us. he siad he isnt included in the celebration that they are celebrating. he siad he doesnt have that justica and healing that they have. he tells them that the sunlight that brings them the healing brings them stripes and death> they never been slaves and they were never beatin but he was. His whole life he was treated unfairly becaus eof the color of his skin in being in slavery . he expresses to them that he is not like them and he cant not celebrate the fourth of july the way they do.

A lecture on the Anti Slavery Movement (Yarisa Figueroa)

                         A lecture on the Anti Slavery Movement (Frederick Douglass)

One anti-slavery movement nearly died out fifty years ago, and I am not prepared to deny the possibility of a like fate for this one. The elements of discord and deterioration are already in it, and working their legitimate results.And yet I am not gloomy. Present organizations may perish, but the cause will go on. That cause has a life, distinct and independent of the organizations atched up from time to time to carry it forward. Looked at apart from the bones and sinews, and body, it is a thing immortal. It is the very essence of justice, liberty and love. The moral life of human society—it cannot die, while conscience, honor and humanity remain. If but one be filled with it, the cause

ives.…If there be but one such man in the land, no matter what becomes of abolition societies and parties, there will be an anti-slavery cause, and an antislavery movement.

In this paragraph Frederick douglass discusses how the anti slavery movemnet  nearly diesd fiffty years ago and he ddint want that to happen with this one. He was prepared to make a difference and do whats right and what he believed in.  He stated that even if things persih , dissapered are no longer there he will still go on and what he wants to achive as the cost  will go on as well. he wanted everyone to have the justice,  the love and liberty they suppose to recieve just because there are human and that is everyones right . He felt that this things is everyone divines right. He felt that no matter if people dont fall through thee will alwyas be an anti slavery movenment.

 

Trans-National America ( Yarisa Figueroa)

Trans-National America Randolph S. Bourne
To face the fact that our aliens are already strong enough to take a share in the direction of their own destiny, and that the strong cultural movements represented by the foreign press, schools, and colonies are a challenge to our facile attempts, is not, however, to admit the failure of Americanization. It is not to fear the failure of democracy. It is rather to urge us to an investigation of what Americanism may rightly mean. It is to ask ourselves whether our ideal has been broad or narrow -- whether perhaps the time has not come to assert a higher ideal than the 'melting- pot.' Surely we cannot be certain of our spiritual democracy when, claiming to melt the nations within us to a comprehension of our free and democratic institutions, we fly into panic at the first sign of their own will and tendency. We act as if we wanted Americanization to take place only on our own terms, and not by the consent of the governed. All our elaborate machinery of settlement and school and union, of social and political naturalization, however, will move with friction just in so far as it neglects to take into account this strong and virile insistence that America shall be what the immigrant will have a hand in making it, and not what a ruling class, descendant of those British stocks which were the first permanent immigrants, decide that America shall be made. This is the condition which confronts us, and which demands a clear and general readjustment of our attitude and our ideal.

Randolph Bourne discusses the “failure of the ‘melting pot.'” According to Bourne, Americans at the time had been trying to assimilate the cultures of immigrants into their own. America was supposed to be the melting pot, where everyone was allowed to come and “melt” into the large American culture. But they overlooked the fact that not everyone wants to be assimilated, and forcing the issue only makes immigrants’ nationalistic feelings towards their countries of origin more intense.Bourne then states “Americanization,” for he argues that it can no longer mean that the United States is a so called “melting pot” waiting for new people to come and embrace the new, larger culture. Americans, he says, need to account for the wishes of the immigrants: how they want to become part of America, not how we want them to become part of the country. He tells Americans that in all actuality, are they are  descendents of immigrants. These people came over not to be part of the Native American culture and adopt all its ways, but in search of freedom. People should regard new immigrants like their ancestors, like people who are searching for freedom instead of new cultural customs to follow.

---

The Atlantic Monthly; July 1916; Trans-national America; Volume 118, No. 1; pages 86-97.