In my eyes, rights are the foundational reasoning that society has order. Plenty of social issues are arisen through rights movements. Because of this, rights prove to be crucial, not only for socialization to flourish, but for our liberty and equality as well. For example, if there weren’t certain rights that people were eligible for, their liberty and equality rights would potentially be threatened. Throughout the rights process, there are many different ways that a group or certain individual can go about making their rights effectively heard and influenced among others. In Policy Paradox, Stone talks about the process in which rights are manifested; in a case such as disability rights, procedural right action is required to make something of the actual “right” in order for it to be enforced. To take this a step further, depending upon where the actual right is formed into some kind of a policy will determine how focused the new policy is. For example, Stone also states that “the constitution and federal laws are the most potent vehicles for establishing rights, because they apply to all citizens.” On the contrary, state and local governments could potentially focus the certain policy upon the citizens, in just the particular state, more efficiently. So yes, the federal law may affect more people in general but the quality or enforcement may be overlooked more than it will if it were a state law. I think that a state policy is more focused and directly affects the people more because it is not implemented among so many people as it would be if it were a federal law. Another reason for state law being more focused is that the particular issue is agreed upon within the state which means that it will have more meaning to the state itself. For example, if a federal policy were to be passed tomorrow that bans farmers from driving tractors on city streets without special permits , it would most likely be regulated efficiently only in the states with a high farming population. In other words, it would not be a major problem in some states so it would not be regulated as thoroughly.
Most of the time there is already some sort of law, rule or regulation concerning the particular issue but not necessarily meeting the desired needs of the “advocate” who wants to change them. This is why nominative rights in this day and age mostly consist of existing policy enhancements. Because of this, policies are constantly being refined in order to be more constitutional, possibly. Since “rights” have such a dominant influence upon rules, laws and regulations, it is exceptionally important that they are constitutional, in a way, to everybody. This may simply explain why gay marriage is not legal to this day. Of course, the main conflicts between these issues are between religions and civil rights, which may be the primary reason this policy has yet to pass in California. Because it affects the majority of the population, possibly because of beliefs, it may not be considered to be constitutional. This example shows how important it is for a right to be considered constitutional, not only by the government, but by the people as well. I guess it could be said that this is the beauty of a democracy.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Chris Johnson's questions
1.) Do you think this organization concerns nominative rights or positive rights? why or why not? and what tools do you see these advocates using to make their rights movement effective? which do you think are most useful for a rights movement?
2.) In what ways do you think nominative rights influence policy decisions? do you think these decisions are beneficial to our society? why? Examples: no Gay marriage, marijuana being illegal, the Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent), freedom of speech...
2.) In what ways do you think nominative rights influence policy decisions? do you think these decisions are beneficial to our society? why? Examples: no Gay marriage, marijuana being illegal, the Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent), freedom of speech...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Facts - by Ian Hooper
In Chapter 13 Stone discusses, “ The Two Faces of Persuasion.” She says that persuasion is the least understood of all human behaviors. She also says that conflict is derived from ignorance, rather than fundamental difference or interests. In the 1790’s almanacs were created as a “solution” to conflict. The rational ideal led to many policy ideas based on rational persuasion-this includes things such as campaigns aimed to; wear you seat belt, or recycle trash. This ration ideal is essentially a vision where conflict is solved by discussion through logic. This intern creates a harmonious society for humans.
The true colors of persuasion can be captured in two words- “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” Indoctrination has two things that separate it from the rational ideal, the first being it is used to manipulate and serve someone’s else’s interests rather than your own. It also takes away peoples ability to think independently. Charles Lindblom on the other hand says that persuasion only plays a large role in totalitarian systems; he calls this political system a “ preceptoral system.” This system is the polar opposite of rational idea. An individual in the rational ideal is free to make their own decisions based on accurate information, where in the preceptoral system you are essentially a puppet, where you listen to others thoughts rather than formulating your own.
The main debate regarding persuasion as a form of control in public policy is where to draw the line. Persuasion can be viewed in two different ways- for example; “Information” can be used as propaganda, but on the other hand it can be used to “enlighten.” The boundary between these two sides of persuasion is blurred, so there is no real definite answer to that. She describes the area in between these two sides as the “terrain of influence.”
When it comes to making facts in the polis Stone describes the rational ideal as the existence of neutral facts,” neutral in the sense that they are not used to promote persuasive force. However there are no independent facts because they are dressed with words and numbers. Naming, just like rule making is classification, which makes it a political act. Stone then goes onto talk about the left and right wing perspectives, and how they convey their messages to influence how we interpret certain things. Her example was how we view terrorism in other country’s to be carried out by left-wing rebels, but here we would see similar acts as “security measures.”
The true colors of persuasion can be captured in two words- “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” Indoctrination has two things that separate it from the rational ideal, the first being it is used to manipulate and serve someone’s else’s interests rather than your own. It also takes away peoples ability to think independently. Charles Lindblom on the other hand says that persuasion only plays a large role in totalitarian systems; he calls this political system a “ preceptoral system.” This system is the polar opposite of rational idea. An individual in the rational ideal is free to make their own decisions based on accurate information, where in the preceptoral system you are essentially a puppet, where you listen to others thoughts rather than formulating your own.
The main debate regarding persuasion as a form of control in public policy is where to draw the line. Persuasion can be viewed in two different ways- for example; “Information” can be used as propaganda, but on the other hand it can be used to “enlighten.” The boundary between these two sides of persuasion is blurred, so there is no real definite answer to that. She describes the area in between these two sides as the “terrain of influence.”
When it comes to making facts in the polis Stone describes the rational ideal as the existence of neutral facts,” neutral in the sense that they are not used to promote persuasive force. However there are no independent facts because they are dressed with words and numbers. Naming, just like rule making is classification, which makes it a political act. Stone then goes onto talk about the left and right wing perspectives, and how they convey their messages to influence how we interpret certain things. Her example was how we view terrorism in other country’s to be carried out by left-wing rebels, but here we would see similar acts as “security measures.”
Ian Hooper's questions
1. Where do we as society draw the line as to what we should believe? And how does the “terrain of influence” impact what we perceive as right and wrong?
2. At what point does information become propaganda? And where do we draw the boundaries of persuasion.
2. At what point does information become propaganda? And where do we draw the boundaries of persuasion.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Andrew D's Questions for Monday
1) What do you think the proper balance of formal rules and discretion in the design of governments would be? How much should government officials be bound by formal rules, and how much should they apply their wisdom to individual situations?
2) When “rules of thumb” of enforcers become common knowledge, and individuals know what they can get away with, does this ultimately help=2 0or harm the overall good of the community?
2) When “rules of thumb” of enforcers become common knowledge, and individuals know what they can get away with, does this ultimately help=2 0or harm the overall good of the community?
Rules by Andrew D.
In Deborah Stone’s chapter this week she discusses Rules. How they work, what makes for good ones, and how they are implemented in the Polis.
Basically, rules work as indirect commands stated once to the general people to whom they apply, rather that to an individual in a particular situation where a certain rule may apply. They gain their power through their image of legitimacy, and this is when they work best. Generally, rules have two parts; they dictate what must be done in certain situations or contexts. They do this by classifying; creating differences and in turn, consequences of those differences. Rules include and exclude people and their ac tivities and therefore establish two groups; the privileged and nonprivileged.
Good rules are made by having a balance of precision and flexibility. In regards to precision, rules must: ensure that like cases are treated alike, protect people from the prejudices and personal opinions of officials, and provide predictability (by telling people what is allowed and what will happen if the rules are broken). I especially liked the quote, “Being able to choose one’s actions with knowledge of the consequences is part of what we mean by freedom.” On the other hand, vague rules can be flexible and allow sensitivity to differences. However, they then require individuals with knowledge and expertise of local conditions to choose how to carry out the general goals. The ideal would be to have an optimum social balance, but this is of course impossible because of the differing context of every situation as earlier mentioned.
Stone also mentions other unattainable ideals, such as, the perfectly precise rule, the perfectly flexible rule, the perfectly enforced rule and the neutral rule. The perfectly enforced rules are highly related to precise rules, in that consequences would be almost automatic and require no discretion from an official. A neutral rule would be a rule that affects everybody the same and thus creates no advantages or disadvantages. While none of these can be achieved, they provide models for us to follow and strive for.
Finally, the chapter talks about how rules are made and used in the Polis. Problems in the Polis are often too complex for rules to be perfectly detailed, as a result rules are usually purposefully vague in order to please many. But a rule can never please everyone in the Polis, a rule of such flexibility would have to be so vague, that it really wouldn’t be a rule at all. Rules in the Polis can never be perfectly enforced. Enforcers are usually people that are influenced by other things besides their official responsibilities. And because rules are never perfectly precise, and often too many violations to handle, enforcers use their rule of thumb to decide consequences.
In the Polis, the power of rules is achieved through their legitamcy, which is gained through their goal to attain perfectly precise, perfectly enforced, and neutral rules. Such rules, would ensure that every individual receives their due. But at the same time, individuals demand their government to pay attention to particular context and thus informal, flexible rules help connect the two requirements.
Basically, rules work as indirect commands stated once to the general people to whom they apply, rather that to an individual in a particular situation where a certain rule may apply. They gain their power through their image of legitimacy, and this is when they work best. Generally, rules have two parts; they dictate what must be done in certain situations or contexts. They do this by classifying; creating differences and in turn, consequences of those differences. Rules include and exclude people and their ac tivities and therefore establish two groups; the privileged and nonprivileged.
Good rules are made by having a balance of precision and flexibility. In regards to precision, rules must: ensure that like cases are treated alike, protect people from the prejudices and personal opinions of officials, and provide predictability (by telling people what is allowed and what will happen if the rules are broken). I especially liked the quote, “Being able to choose one’s actions with knowledge of the consequences is part of what we mean by freedom.” On the other hand, vague rules can be flexible and allow sensitivity to differences. However, they then require individuals with knowledge and expertise of local conditions to choose how to carry out the general goals. The ideal would be to have an optimum social balance, but this is of course impossible because of the differing context of every situation as earlier mentioned.
Stone also mentions other unattainable ideals, such as, the perfectly precise rule, the perfectly flexible rule, the perfectly enforced rule and the neutral rule. The perfectly enforced rules are highly related to precise rules, in that consequences would be almost automatic and require no discretion from an official. A neutral rule would be a rule that affects everybody the same and thus creates no advantages or disadvantages. While none of these can be achieved, they provide models for us to follow and strive for.
Finally, the chapter talks about how rules are made and used in the Polis. Problems in the Polis are often too complex for rules to be perfectly detailed, as a result rules are usually purposefully vague in order to please many. But a rule can never please everyone in the Polis, a rule of such flexibility would have to be so vague, that it really wouldn’t be a rule at all. Rules in the Polis can never be perfectly enforced. Enforcers are usually people that are influenced by other things besides their official responsibilities. And because rules are never perfectly precise, and often too many violations to handle, enforcers use their rule of thumb to decide consequences.
In the Polis, the power of rules is achieved through their legitamcy, which is gained through their goal to attain perfectly precise, perfectly enforced, and neutral rules. Such rules, would ensure that every individual receives their due. But at the same time, individuals demand their government to pay attention to particular context and thus informal, flexible rules help connect the two requirements.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Ryne Thomas' Questions
1)"...the dimensions of human activity we care about are always far more
numerous and complex than what can be captured in formal rules, so rules
always contain escape hatches." Which rules tend to have more loopholes
(precise rules, flexible rules, neutral rules...)?
2)If rules of thumb(police officer gives you a cushion of 10 mph)directly
affect formal rules (law), what prevents people from using rules of thumb
for their defense in such cases as a 10 mph traffic violation, in a court
case. Stone explains in the last few pages of the chapter what happens
when people go by the book, instead of what is normally tollerated.
numerous and complex than what can be captured in formal rules, so rules
always contain escape hatches." Which rules tend to have more loopholes
(precise rules, flexible rules, neutral rules...)?
2)If rules of thumb(police officer gives you a cushion of 10 mph)directly
affect formal rules (law), what prevents people from using rules of thumb
for their defense in such cases as a 10 mph traffic violation, in a court
case. Stone explains in the last few pages of the chapter what happens
when people go by the book, instead of what is normally tollerated.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Kirsten Nilsson's Blog Post
I come from a very small town in Vermont where Fair-trade products are in abundance. In small communities, customers stay loyal to their local farmers. Not just food products, art, furniture, textiles, jewelry, and clothing. It is more convenient to buy local goods than it is to travel out of the valley for a large selection of mass produced goods. So why not shop ethically in your own backyard, when its more convienent anyway? Moving to California was obviosuly a culture shock, a big difference is where Californian's buy their goods. Someone in Thousand Oaks goes to Ralphs and chooses from a variety of products, and someone in LA goes to Ralphs and chooses from the same selection. I am yet to find a good selection of fairtrade goods, a farmers market here and there, stands on the side of the road, but with a language barrier Im not to sure weather or not I am buying locally. Whole Foods does not equal fair trade, it is possible to find a few fair trade Items in there but most of thoes products have traveled hundreds of miles or more. Its apparent that finding these fair trade items is like a wild goose chase for me, so I rarely chase that goose. I don’t buy very many fairtrade products, mostly because of the convience.
Convience plays a huge role in a consumers mission, the shopper is looking for the most effiecnt way to get to the products they need. If supporting local farmers means driving even more than thirty minutes, forget it. A small percentage of people will make this journey when there is a perfectly “healthy” Whole Foods right down the road. With more information would consumers make this journey, just to make an ethical purchase? Dr Barnett said: "People actually seem very aware of these types of things, but often don't feel that they have the opportunities or resources to be able to buy Fairtrade products or ethically sourced goods. And it's not as simple as the consumer making a choice to buy an item that is ethically sound" I agree if it were more about making the decision to buy the Fair Trade products than we’d have a larger percent of people supporting local farmers. Its much more than this in most communities especially in citys, finding fair trade goods is like finding a needle in a hay stack.
Then why go to so much trouble to shop ethically? You want to live Ethically right. Just because it would be more convient to run over people on the cross walk to get where you are going faster, it doesn’t mean its ethical, therefor you probally wouldn't do that. Hitting pedestrains is “wrong”. So is buying products from strangers, from unknown regions, and supporting them, is wrong, when you could support your fellow countrymen and buy locally. It’s not just the ticket you can get for hitting a pedestrain or not yielding in a crosswalk, that keeps you from doing it, you don’t do it because it is not ethical. What is ethical though, is buying fair trade products, can society just do this because it is ethical, I think this has allready been proved as false. If fair trade had more perks/insentives more people would go that route. Not all perks are luxuries. Sometimes perks are the benefits your socity gets from acting in a certain way. Unfortuanatly these are not the insentives that people rush to resopond to.
Convience plays a huge role in a consumers mission, the shopper is looking for the most effiecnt way to get to the products they need. If supporting local farmers means driving even more than thirty minutes, forget it. A small percentage of people will make this journey when there is a perfectly “healthy” Whole Foods right down the road. With more information would consumers make this journey, just to make an ethical purchase? Dr Barnett said: "People actually seem very aware of these types of things, but often don't feel that they have the opportunities or resources to be able to buy Fairtrade products or ethically sourced goods. And it's not as simple as the consumer making a choice to buy an item that is ethically sound" I agree if it were more about making the decision to buy the Fair Trade products than we’d have a larger percent of people supporting local farmers. Its much more than this in most communities especially in citys, finding fair trade goods is like finding a needle in a hay stack.
Then why go to so much trouble to shop ethically? You want to live Ethically right. Just because it would be more convient to run over people on the cross walk to get where you are going faster, it doesn’t mean its ethical, therefor you probally wouldn't do that. Hitting pedestrains is “wrong”. So is buying products from strangers, from unknown regions, and supporting them, is wrong, when you could support your fellow countrymen and buy locally. It’s not just the ticket you can get for hitting a pedestrain or not yielding in a crosswalk, that keeps you from doing it, you don’t do it because it is not ethical. What is ethical though, is buying fair trade products, can society just do this because it is ethical, I think this has allready been proved as false. If fair trade had more perks/insentives more people would go that route. Not all perks are luxuries. Sometimes perks are the benefits your socity gets from acting in a certain way. Unfortuanatly these are not the insentives that people rush to resopond to.
Inducements
Inducements
By Brittney Martinelli
What caught my interest the most in Stone’s Eleventh chapter of “Public Policy” was her point on the emotional ties that evolve from the form of inducement used. There is no doubt that inducements, whether positive or negative, are very useful in the polis and in life but one of the major factors of the outcome of the inducement relies on what form is used. When it comes to negative inducements, even when the inducer gets the receiver to do what they what them to do or not do, the total effect may not always be the best for the receiver; therefore, in the long term, the inducement itself is not as effective.
When a punishment is threatened or carried out, the receiver of that punishment or threat of punishment feels automatic resentment toward the one (or force) giving it. This negative attitude creates hatred between the two groups or individuals that is often hard to overcome; such the violent behavior between police and criminals. This attitude also causes the receiver of the negative inducement to be more likely to repeat the wrong-doing. Good inducements however create feelings of loyalty and commitment. One that is given incentives either to do or not do certain things is more likely to learn from their mistakes in a positive manner and while doing so build ties with others. For example, when a small child says to another “I will let you play with my play dough if you let me play with your hot wheels”, they form a friendship and are likely to try this tactic on other children. Where as if the child had said “If you don’t let me play with your hot wheels, I’m going to eat all of your play dough”, the inducement would not only be most likely ineffective, but the two children will probably hate each other all through elementary school. Of
course if a reward is promised and then not given out, this theory back
fires.
There are certain cases were penalties are undeniably needed. Like Michael Moore said in response to one of my questions: punishments should be used to get people to not do what you do not want them to and rewards should be used to get people to do what you want them to do. There is no way around the fact that if there were only incentives in the world and punishments did not exist, our society would be chaotic. We simply cannot motivate murderers, rapists or thieves to stop their crimes by offering them money or other valuables. My point in this post is that penalties are absolutely essential for major offenses but, for the situations where there is a
choice between using positive or negative inducements, positive inducements are longer lasting and better for our society as a whole.
By Brittney Martinelli
What caught my interest the most in Stone’s Eleventh chapter of “Public Policy” was her point on the emotional ties that evolve from the form of inducement used. There is no doubt that inducements, whether positive or negative, are very useful in the polis and in life but one of the major factors of the outcome of the inducement relies on what form is used. When it comes to negative inducements, even when the inducer gets the receiver to do what they what them to do or not do, the total effect may not always be the best for the receiver; therefore, in the long term, the inducement itself is not as effective.
When a punishment is threatened or carried out, the receiver of that punishment or threat of punishment feels automatic resentment toward the one (or force) giving it. This negative attitude creates hatred between the two groups or individuals that is often hard to overcome; such the violent behavior between police and criminals. This attitude also causes the receiver of the negative inducement to be more likely to repeat the wrong-doing. Good inducements however create feelings of loyalty and commitment. One that is given incentives either to do or not do certain things is more likely to learn from their mistakes in a positive manner and while doing so build ties with others. For example, when a small child says to another “I will let you play with my play dough if you let me play with your hot wheels”, they form a friendship and are likely to try this tactic on other children. Where as if the child had said “If you don’t let me play with your hot wheels, I’m going to eat all of your play dough”, the inducement would not only be most likely ineffective, but the two children will probably hate each other all through elementary school. Of
course if a reward is promised and then not given out, this theory back
fires.
There are certain cases were penalties are undeniably needed. Like Michael Moore said in response to one of my questions: punishments should be used to get people to not do what you do not want them to and rewards should be used to get people to do what you want them to do. There is no way around the fact that if there were only incentives in the world and punishments did not exist, our society would be chaotic. We simply cannot motivate murderers, rapists or thieves to stop their crimes by offering them money or other valuables. My point in this post is that penalties are absolutely essential for major offenses but, for the situations where there is a
choice between using positive or negative inducements, positive inducements are longer lasting and better for our society as a whole.
Neil Sampson's Essay
When speaking on issues through out the political world there always arises the question are by which what are the effects? The discussion soon branches off into mini questions like Who is affected? In What way? Do they know it ? If so what do they know about it ? and there is always two sides to the story. Stone states that the two sides of the story in politics are said to be “interests” basically interests are groups that have a stake in an issue or are affected by it. Interest groups are affected and the way that they react to what has occurred can shape and persuade public officials to act or vote according to a group members interests. Stone discusses two key interests and I will speak more in depth on each of them to prove that they are affected and how mobilization works in the Polis. The first interest is Objective interest. Stone stated it as “Objective interests are those effects that actually impinge on people, regardless of peoples awareness of them; subjective interest are of course, those things that people believe affect them. I feel this can be seen as how exactly both interest groups are. Subjective Objective interests are ones that physically and mentally crack down on you and you are very aware of what is going on as to Objective interest are things that are effecting the whole society as a whole but people aren’t aware that it is affecting them.” People might be affected but not directly know that its happening to the. For example if someone was charging you more then you really thought you were paying for its seen as lack of awareness and lack of consciousness, in stones ready objective interest are seen in that political view also. Although that one may not know they are being effected there are the ones who are not affected by something but still believe they are this can denoted in Stones book as mistaken belief or false consciousness. For example someone’s car brakes down due to a bad engine, one may blame their own fatigue or slow response time for the accident but in reality it’s the mechanical problem in the car. Although subjective and objective interests are different they are seen to be linked in their own ways. Subjective interests are not ever given but they occur by the way in which life chances are objectively affected by objective conditions. I think that part of the objective interest aren’t good because when people are blinded from the truth and figure things out later then sooner it is almost like its too late to change things. For example people who became addicted to a drug were brain washed, and when they finally hooked on it to where it’s too late. Although I don’t agree with that part I agree that there should be things or a policy that meets peoples essential humans, and serves for the community as a whole. I feel that things should be for the whole as community and not for jus the self. Things work better when everyone as a whole is happy, majority can make better decisions when everyone is satisfied, when the entire society is pleased and people know about what’s going on it helps for a more functional and more working society. When knowing interest they must be understood and one must know that a group with outstanding individuals and a group of people who praise their self as a one and makes decisions for the one not the whole does not function like a group that has interests for the fundamental individual and more class based ideas , in addition to group representation is more necessary for a interest group. As we read on in Chapter 9 we see how mobilization plays a large roll when making interest in the Polis. Mobilization can be seen the process by which effects and experiences are converted into organized efforts to bring about change. A mobilization can be seen as a good thing in society because it supports collective action and social contact. I think this is very important in today’s society and policy because when people express their feelings and everyone’s voice is heard everyone ends up happy at the end of the day because everyone got a say in the decision. With more ideas and relationships built the network becomes a more widespread and open free flowing society as to one that has to have everything approved by one sole member. I think there is a bigger influence when. With more ideas and relationships built the network becomes a more widespread and open free flowing society as to one that has to have everything approved by one sole member. I think there is a bigger influence when you have mobilization rather then not having it. In conclusion it think interest can play an extremely good roll in today’s society although there are a few flaws I have showed most of the positive feeds interest groups bring out in a society.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Kirsten Nillson's Questions
1Why is it that it takes either insentitives or conesquences to persuade certain people/or groups to act in a way they normally wouldnt? And what does Cooperation have to do with these Iducements?
2What insentives would it take for you to commit to only fairtrade products? Explain why Fairtrade products would be more ethical, and how ethics relates to what most people do regarding fair trade.
2What insentives would it take for you to commit to only fairtrade products? Explain why Fairtrade products would be more ethical, and how ethics relates to what most people do regarding fair trade.
Brittney Martinelli's Questions
1. in your opinion, which is the more effective way to motivate the people of society? the incentive pay systems(rewards) method or the economic sanctions (penalty) method?
2. In the New York Times magazine article "A Payoff out of Poverty?", the Oportunidaes program was a huge success in Paso de Coyutla, Mexico. Despite the strict traditions that had been going on for decades, the program established there was greeted by the citizens with open arms and change happened rapidly. Oportunidades is now one of the most-studied social programs on the planet. If it is such an accomplishment why then is it not having the same effect on the poor in New York?
2. In the New York Times magazine article "A Payoff out of Poverty?", the Oportunidaes program was a huge success in Paso de Coyutla, Mexico. Despite the strict traditions that had been going on for decades, the program established there was greeted by the citizens with open arms and change happened rapidly. Oportunidades is now one of the most-studied social programs on the planet. If it is such an accomplishment why then is it not having the same effect on the poor in New York?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)