Most Glaring State

I had relatives who used to live on the other side of the Jersey River. They called me up last week and they were in panic. They were so active and affected in their politics that they realized that it's already six weeks away and so they had to work harder, twice the effort this time, to get the Democratic vote out for John Kerry.

New Jersey is a tossed-up state. It can be recalled that Al Gore won by 16 points in 2000, and in the last three election cycles, it has voted solidly Democratic.

As of this writing, their result of one poll showed that Kerry and George Bush were running neck and neck. Kerry's gain of two digits has evaporated within the margin of error.

A columnist once commented that the inadequacy of nationwide polling underlined the situation in New Jersey. The polls showed no discernible daylight between the presidential candidates.

It is when you examine closely that you will know that a perfect example of a trend that is most glaring that has put into waste his convenient electoral map is the state of New Jersey.

Sorry, Blame It On Who?

The situation in Iraq has worsen every single day even if the president tries to speak in terms of its positive views. The situation has gone intolerable no matter how the president tries to persuade the reporters worldwide to play along and proclaim to the whole of the world that there is nothing wrong with Iraq and its people are okay.

The country of Iraq is in shock and awe. It is in shock and awe because it is now experiencing the very ironies in the societies. Blame it to their abundance in oil but still it's no excuse that its people deserve the horrifying experiences that their government (and the outside force) has brought them. Blame it to their being naive, but still it's an issue of peace, justice and transparency here that put its people to danger – the political and economic issues, which are ever since neverending.

The situation is just upsetting.

MoreDigital.com on Facebook ban

This'll feel like me going off on somewhat of a tangent considering my ever-present focus on political issues, but I think it's important enough to be mentioned as it concerns the future of my site and the “behind the scenes” matters that occur when you're reading these posts.

Lately, I've been looking for ways to take a look at the more political aspects of the blog itself, and its role as a method of communicating my opinions on topics that sometimes invite a lot of controversy. When you're blogging about global politics, people tend to get involved, and it's one of the most popular subjects if you follow the rankings of sites like the CNN blog on the WordPress ranking tables.

Loads of blogs about blogging (bit of a matryoshka principle, I know) like the MoreDigital blog do a lot of talking about the political and industrial issues surrounding the art of representing political ideas through blogging and social networking, and it's something to think about. Do I become a politically-biased site by commenting one way or another?

In fact, is neutrality really the way to go at all? Is it not just a scam to convince others you have no political opinions? When you really think about it, aren't we treading on thin ice when we know that people researching the same issue but supporting a different political or ideological standpoint and then focus this into your comments section. What seems like an interesting issue can quickly devolve into a desperate battle of self-defence against those who see your blog post as anything but neutral.

When you're thinking about posts like MoreDigital's blog about the Facebook ban in Pakistan and the resulting controversy surrounding the offensive images of the Prophet Mohammed, you've got to give them credit – that takes serious courage to come out and tackle an issue like that without staying neutral. The important thing is however, like their post, to make sure the reader knows they support both sides, while only criticising the arguments made themselves.

The Same Contribution, Different Dues

Capital is the part of the wealth of a country which is employed in production that is necessary to give effect to labor. Developing countries are exerting all their best efforts to attract foreign investors. However, there are investors who are not paying what is due of them. Given that there there are those who are paid below the minimum wage, what will happen to those small industries and enterprises owned by the locals? For sure, not all of them can compete in the market.

If different industries apply different amounts of capital per laborer, then the rate of profit will also differ across industries. What does this mean? The "labor-embodied" theory of value would only work if the degree of capital-intensity was the same across all sectors?

If the natural price of labor depends on the price of food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the laborer and his family, then why is it that a manager has a different wage from an ordinary employee?

Men Versus Machines

Free market principles are evident in Asian economies. However, isn't it also true that some Asian countries - Japan, for example – ascribe to an approach to economic development that emphasize government action to stimulate industry? Japan has had its economic troubles in recent years, as all countries do, but does its general success give credence to the theory that government should actively work to stimulate industry?

It is stated in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations that the invention of machines facilitated and abridged labor. Does this not also degrade man power and at the same time removes the opportunity for the laborer to develop skills in performing the task?

If every laborer has only one task to perform and specialized with, what if a situation comes that there is a need for a new man to perform such task isn't it that it will be more convenient to have a man who is already part of the company who could have learned the skill than to hire a new one?

Humans Aren't Robots

Why do people have different incomes? Why do farmers get the least of benefits and regarded as the lowest class when they are the ones producing our basic necessities - food?

Following Smith's idea, shouldn't the government allot a bigger part of the tax to education and to our farmers? A huge bulk of our taxes only goes to the pockets of our corrupt officials who contribute nothing but plunder. How about a reform for the distribution of government capital (tax) to government employees, say a "sky scraper" raise for our beloved public school teachers?

Adam Smith offered that one of the solutions to improve and increase the speed of production is to apply the division of labor, and it seems to be true because the skill of the worker will be focused in what he/she always does. But humans by nature are bound to be creative and will always divert themselves to other things, what would be the effect of this to their work? and what can be done to satisfy their cravings for diversion?

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

In The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the improvement of the laborer is also the improvement of the country. Is this true? Or does this still remain a theory? If yes, what are the countries that delve on the improvement of the laborer? If no, why not?

Also, Adam Smith (in the same book) discussed something about a scenario saying than even if wage is increased, there is a point that it will no longer benefit the workers (Iron Rule of Wages). Do you believe that this is a sound hypothesis?

The assembly line introduced by the Americans follow the observation of Adam Smith that division of labor yields a lot of advantages. But does division of labor imply specialization of work at all times? The division of labor leads to convenience for men, but not always to the progress of the society. To what extent of the division of labor favorable to progress?

The Other Side Of The Coin

The Filipino people have already learned their lesson. When it comes to Philippine politics, its not anymore about the 3+1 Gs: gold nor goons nor guns not even glamor. The Filipino people have turned to be matured citizens of their country – this is what the world realized after their 2007 national and local elections.

In the said national event, people no longer were deceived with their candidates' 3+1 Gs. Rather, they are more vigilant in choosing who they will vote to sit in the government. The administration's line up was composed of famous celebrities in the fields of media, show business, and sports while on the opposition side they had a line up who were bartering “genuine service” in lieu with the people's votes. Whatever genuine service means to the Filipino people, it only showed one thing – that most probably the service offered by the opposition is the ultimate kind that the Filipino needed as shown in the results of the election. It's now the opposition's turn.

Save The Pearl Of The Orient

The results of the national elections in the Philippines in 2007 showed that the Filipinos have learned from their series of elections that brought no good to their country and to its people. It can be recalled in their country's history that candidates seek position in the local or national government very easily. There had been no standard judgment that would serve as the basis for its qualification to run in any seat. Although, their Commission on Elections had presented the eligibility rules but still, it had made no effect. Basically, everyone can run even if this means defying the set rules. There's always a way because there's a will from these aspiring officials. And as I have said, this brought no good to the whole country because those who ran and made it to the government seats were no way public servants. These people were selfish people and all they have been doing to the Philippines is put the country into a very unstable economic condition.

You know what I'm saying? Read more about the Philippines' economic status.

Nice Try Pacman!

It can be remembered that the world-famous, boxing hero, Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao “gave in” to the desire of those people who requested him to run for a post in the Philippine elections, second monday of May 2007. There were two positions he was choosing: the mayoralty and the congressional posts. Yet before the deadline of the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy, the “Pambansang Kamao” (National Fist) had decided to vie for a seat in the Philippine Congress.

There had been hundreds, if not thousands, of news and blogs by Filipino people expressing their sentiments to Manny. All of these boiled down to one message: “Please don't run.” Despite the negative feedback of the people, he insisted to run and and compete against the incumbent congressman in their district. As expected he lost; and take note, vote discrepancy was very significant. It was like Manny only got 10 per cent of the total voting population and the rest went to this opponent.

Nice try Manny! Maybe you're only for boxing!

The Iron Fist Of Machiavelli

I should say that Machiavelli is a genius. Machiavelli said that it is better for the prince to be feared by his people than to be loved, pointing out that man is selfish and deceitful and would only be loyal to his master because he doesn't want to be harmed or punished. Why does he think so negatively with man's nature? Furthermore, if we live in fear with our master, aren't we susceptible into hating him and acting against him?

The idea, "he'd rather be feared than loved", is a good one I think because if the ruler is feared in that way, it is unlikely for his people to disobey the laws. Furthermore, a ruler who is loved by the people must be tolerant of law breakers. What i'm tryin to ponder on right now is: are humans really selfish by nature? When are they selfish and when are they not?

The Saints Plus Machiavelli

Unlike Socrates, Plato, Aquinas and St. Augustine, Machiavelli seems to be playing the bad cop here. Machiavelli's book “The Prince” is a good read because it lets us see the idea of a 'perfect' ruler in both points of view: the good and the bad.

When you think about it, Machiavelli's ideas really do make sense, they are practical and logical, but the only thing is that it cannot be applied to every state in general and it is 'bad'. He thinks that this prince who has these qualities knows how to be not good, a good feigner and dissembler, one more likely to be feared than loved.

If everybody in a community is good, then be good, but what if you're the only one being good and you totally know that it may cost you your life, will you still live up to your kindness and be ready to die? Maybe for some, it is possible. This may be really rude to hear but people can err. So it's like a pratical way to also learn and be 'bad' if it is necessary.

I'm now wondering, if all these thinkers that I mentioned had the opportunity to be together and discuss their ideas, what should the outcome be? Most especially St Augustine and Aquinas as opposed to Machiavelli. Chaotic, isn't it?

Goodwill Over Anything Else

From The Prince and The Discourses of Machiavelli, there is a part that states that it is not necessary for a leader to let his subjects know who he really is and what his limitations are. Aren't these things supposed to be known to his constituents so they may know if they've got the right leader for a position?

Is it safe to say that a prince being deceitful to his subjects such as pretending to possess good qualities- merciful, faithful,humane, sincere, religious - even though he is not could make him a good and effective prince?

Doesn't the way of living of the citizens of a certain state reflect the success of the ruler and/or the state? If the ruler is "not good," deceives his subjects, and exploits them in order to maintain his rule over them, then how can it be successful in the sense that it can maintain the order, morality and progress of that state and society?

The Machiavellian Ways

In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli talked about the qualities mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion. But he stated that it's not necessary for a Prince to have them, to quote him, "to possess them and to always observe them is dangerous, but to appear to have them is useful". I wonder, does that make a good ruler? A ruler that deceives his subjects on qualities that he doesn't possess?

Machiavelli also concluded that a wise prince will make the citizens of his state faithful to him. He also mentioned that the prince who causes another to become powerful thereby works his own ruin. So does that mean that a leader should always keep his position as the most
powerful man in the state so for him to prevent his own ruin?

Is a Machiavellian leader correct and justified when he/she decides to industrialize his country for higher economic growth rate, that, on the other hand, would cost farmers their jobs?

The World Is So Hard To Decode

It’s quite sad that while the world is tremendously facing a lot of problems, various statistics show that there are even lesser people than those who really care for the world. If we talk about, say, capitalism and feudalism. People have not been hands on in learning these philosophies. A great number of the entire world population care less about how capitalism and feudalism fiercely affect and manipulate each and everyone's life.

For me, I think that everyday as we go to work for sustenance, as we seek to survive in this world of struggle, it’s as if capitalism is eating everyone alive. But will communism do us good, anyway? If yes, then why is it that people from South Korea, a country that practices democracy, “feels sad” for the people in the North that embraces communism. If communism brings common good to its people, can we equate common good to happiness and satisfaction? Are the people in the communist countries happy? Or are they just unaware of the kind of treatment by their government disabling them to determine what happiness is in relation to the happiness that the South perceives?

Revolt, But How?

The idea of revolution is very promising, very sincere in its intention to change radically, yet it appears vague to me. Before, I used to attend educational discussions and I had observed that most, if not all, educational discussions ended up with a proposal to revolt. Step-by-step plans were made, division of labor had been assigned to participants. Everyone acknowledged the fact that revolting is a long process and may be never-ending as long as there are pressing issues that need immediate action.

I am not against revolution nor its intentions of having one. In fact, I consider it an alternative too, to change the very corrupt system of society. But fear and anxiety swallowed my ideal part of me. Probably, because I am not yet too ripe, as me being an activist – open minded, and critical. I hope I can learn more info about this matter.

What Is In A Leviathanic State?

The famous thinker, Thomas Hobbes coined the word Leviathan. As he described it in his works, Leviathan is an artificial person whose body's made up of all the bodies of its citizens – the literal members of the Leviathan's body. It is therefore a metaphor of a state. The sovereign is the leader of the Leviathan. The people, its followers, will sign into a contract authorizing themselves to be under the order of the Leviathan for them to escape the horrors of the natural condition of men and the environment. It is the power of the Leviathan that shields the people from the abuses and maltreatment of one another.

In this work, Hobbes explained the process of creating the Leviathan, the rights of the sovereigns and the common people, and illustrated the civil and legislative mechanics of the commonwealth. He also explained the religious system of the Leviathan and compared it with the Christian doctrine. He concluded that to achieve a secure Christian commonwealth, there should be a political implementation of the Leviathanic state.

Thomas Hobbes And His Contributions

Thomas Hobbes recounted that on the day of his birth in 1588, his mother learned that the Spanish Armada had set sail to attack England. This news terrified Hobbes’s mother that she went into labor prematurely.

Hobbes was born in Malmesbury in 1588. He studied at Oxford University. And because he was a tutor for a noble English family, he had opportunities for travel. In France he was so fortunate he knew Mersenne, the great friend of Descartes. It was, in fact, Mersenne who induced Hobbes to write his critical observations on the Meditations of Descartes. At Florence he came into contact with the thought of Galileo.

Hobbes wrote one of the greatest philosophical works – this was published three times with three different titles. The first was De Cive (On the Social and Political Organism). Hobbes developed this and later published it under the title De Corpore (On the Body, The Leviathan). The final development was his De Homine (On Man). Among these three, it's the Leviathan that's considered his masterpiece of all time.

America's Transport System

The United States of America may be facing a crisis in transportation as the remarkably populous post-World War II generation begins to approach the age of 60. This is a milestone that many transportation researchers and analysts cite as a time when it is recommendable for some drivers to start abandoning the luxury of private cars for the safety of public transportation.

According to some statistics that have been presented in different media all over America, each year hundreds of thousands of older people who have outlived their ability or willingness to drive must depend on alternative transportation systems (like the trains, buses, taxi cabs) that, outside of the nation’s most urbanized communities, are usually unable to meet their needs. This gap between the driving expectancy and life expectancy has placed important and usually unexpected economic and social burdens on many seniors not just in US but in the whole world.

Living In Postmodernity

I have been running. Chasing away my life. Wanting to become successful somehow to the standards of this world. But its too late I realized that I am just drowning in the ocean of postmodernity.

Everyday I am living a lie, wearing so much pretension to survive from the world that is full of the superficial.

When I was in my teenage years, I cannot take the hearts of those famous and popular people who kill themselves. Yes it is a crazy act, you would think. For me it is a cliche, a glitch in the history of creating literature. For me, killing my own self should mean a lot of things -- many things. It should be symbolical – metaphorical. It should be out of something eternal that was broken. Somehow something that resembles the memory of love lost, of dreams, of falling in love with trivialities and nightmares. But now I understand them, quite, or something that resembles them, emptiness, death, drowning, superficial – beyond the common truth.

All because you know that you live in postmodernity.