Is this the last entry? Maybe?

This class was very intriguing. I do not feel myself rushing to read more about legal philosophy, but I am glad I have had some access to it. I felt learning the different tactics and perspectives on law, mixed with the relevance of historical ideas and their progression, has allowed me to see the world a little clearer. On a whole, I feel like I understand the judicial system a little better because of what we have discussed.

Although I was not at class today, I did find an article earlier today which sparked my interest. It was about a Pennsylvanian judge who was giving juvenile offenders maximum sentences to two prisons because of the illegal profits he could make off of them.

Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/09judge.html?ref=markaciavarella

This reminded me of Gideon's Trumpet. Apparently some of the kids didn't have lawyers, according to the article, which makes me wonder how some of these court cases went through at all. Another aspect was on the kids not knowing their rights. When our country's youth does not know their rights it makes it also makes it easier for a juvenile to just plea on what they have done, but this makes the court cases unfair because they are not being guided properly through the trial. It also gives the judge in power say to any verdict he would wish.

Problems like these make me think that everyone should know about legal practices. At least a little bit. This would be the only way to create a stronger system of law. People with knowledge of the legal system would then have a greater sense of autonomy when coming to discussions on forming laws, being on trial, or having a general sense of morality. Otherwise, people would fall under the will's of others; either by listening directly to a judge or not fully being able to work with or understand a lawyer. Without this autonomy within individuals, I feel corruption will ensue within America's legal system and with it the fall of morality within our country. This judge represents just one of the self-interested people who work within our legal system, but can show that America is not all it lives up to be. Only through the hard work of our citizens and the relationships we create with one another can we live up to our motto of "with liberty and justice for all." E. Pluburis unum. If not, self-interest and greed will take over the prized ideals which the United State attempts to represent.

Assimilating Ideas

Towards the end of class we mentioned assimilation. I have always found this concept to be vital in how people think and operate. Assimilation starts at birth. The relationships formed within early childhood development will have lasting influences over a person's life, although assimilation could occur at later ages, but often many of the ideas within one's psyche will root within their childhood. For instance, a person would not be a Catholic unless they grew up in a Catholic household or a society permitting the practice of such a religion. In general, this just makes me think it is horribly indecent to hold higher a particular belief over another. That is because no matter what someone's perspective is their actions or thoughts are responsible from the relationships around them.

Peerenboom writes about harmony of the state within the ideas of Confucianism. This places emphasis on the relationships of individuals apposed to individuals themselves. As the social order of Chinese ideology requires interconnection, assimilation is then merely the union of various influences that constitute itself. Assimilation is then a dynamic systems of relationships that seem to resonate the Buddhist idea of interdependency.

I don't know where I'm going with this . .  but maybe it can spark an idea or a thought.

Naturalism to the Extreme

Reading about show trials made me think about performance in general. The major purpose for these trials is to ultimately give a recount of the truth. This is very reminiscent of theatre, which according to Aristotle, tries to perform universals [within the action] which will then show the truth. These mass trials are in effect trying to present something to the audience, which they will hope, will create a form of impact of the audience of those involved. In this way, besides the outcome of the victim if charges are placed against them, show trials are merely a form of propaganda. This doesn't mean show trials are necessarily bad, they could be, but if done correctly and justly then it is propaganda for the good of humanity. This is the same dilemma theatre faces; if you are not philosophizing about the ultimate goal of the production itself then it could lead audiences astray, which is what most media today does anyway, but if it confronts and grips it audiences, challenges them, gives them a sense of novelty through a powerful experience, it can then lead to rationalizing actions in the future, which will lead to the well being of society and men. In a way the, these show trials are a form of performance which takes naturalism to a new level (naturalism being different than realism).

Enforcing Morals

Devlin seems to associate the collective conscious of a society on placing the morals of a country. Morality is then enforced through the laws that revolve around it. This is to say if society disagrees with something that it has the right to be 'eradicated.' Devlin quickly demonstrates that this is a rather extreme measure, but at the same time, he still gives eradication a sense of validity. This seems to be dangerous. As much as I'd like for people who I consider immoral to go away, if one is to reject them altogether it doesn't seem to fix anything. Instead it could create backlash. This is comparable to the United States using drones to quickly eliminate terrorist threats. An unknown danger is created through a new generation that fears and hates America even more. If someone's father was killed, as a suspected terrorist, the morally just thing to do in the eyes of their children would be to eliminate the evil within the world, a.k.a America. The 'good guy and bad guy' 'ideology, which also runs rampant through American society, is a very dangerous notion and also is associated to some degree with morals. Nations like Iraq or Afghanistan are then only being reinforced with diverse cultural views and the potential demise of anyone you know and love by the dystopian-like reality that drones create. Just because we think something should be eradicated or removed does not justify the act. Even if all Americans believed the Middle-East should be bombed because it is an 'active threat' does not create the incentive or rationality to do that act. Or if the act of trying to eradicate a potential threat was completely legal, it still would not justify such actions.

Interdependency

The section on Japanese property law I thought was pretty interesting. It made mention to the Japanese government promoting and protecting its economy even when there is no type of malfunction or crisis within it. It seems they take away the idea of individual self-interest and try looking at the bigger picture of interconnectivity which inevitably makes an economy successful. In America, private enterprise seems to see people as a means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. This self-motivation and independence can not lead to success in the long run, for it is not sustainable. The clearest example of this can be seen in agriculture or more abstractly ecological principles. Monocultures are dependent on human fertilizers, mainly oil, to create a linear means of production in food. This ends up destroying more than it creates although it is a great way to make profit when energy is readily available. In non-idustrialized farming, resources are recycled because they replicate natural processes which are sustainable. This deals with interdependency, which Japanese government and law tries to emphasize in its practice. I feel America needs to start looking to these lessons of relying on the group rather than the individual in some respects.

Biological Patents

I felt like bringing up my SLAP question from this week, especially after what was being talked about towards the end of today’s class. My question was whether patents can be arranged on something that is already found in nature. With science starting to alter agriculture, corporations are now being able to modify crop DNA. This genetically modified seed can then be patented. Biological patents were first introduced in the 1970s and increased in the 1990s. Corporations can then hold farmers liable if they haven’t bought the seed directly from them or if they are caught having traces of their crops DNA on their land if they are a commercial operation. This then starts the need for new types of property law. In the past patents were only for material objects that were constructed, but what if all vegetables in the future are patented? This opens up many ethical questions. I feel that biological patents should not be given out. In the end these legal protections are doing more harm than good.

Some of the results of industrial monocultures are loss of biodiversity, decline in bee populations (due to pesticides and other factors), destroying fertile soil, contributing to global warming, and having mostly unknown effects towards the health of our citizens and environment. 10% of bee populations have declined in the past 2 decades on a global scale. It costs about 10 calories of energy in oil to produce 1 calorie of edible food. Our farming is dependent on pesticides and oil, which is not sustainable. The European Union has enacted policies such as the Precautionary Principle when it comes to their agriculture, while Americans just throw what they make in the fields and sees what happens. 85% of the corn related products, mostly processed foods, etc. high fructose corn syrup, glucose syrup, maltodextrin, unmodified starch, lecithin, and ascorbic acid to name a few. Japan is watching America’s youth, our generation, as GMO guinea pigs essentially. These are some of the things biological patents, owned by big corporations which support these kinds of profitable agriculture, are protecting now in America. (Taking the Future of Food course if you’re interested in more information) 

Sex and Society

Reading the article by Lois Pineau, I found myself thinking that these cases involving date rape are usually not fair and very difficult to prove. I already assumed this, but my beliefs were confirmed. In class today, I found the biggest problem within these cases may not necessarily draw from law, but the perspective of society around these issues of date rape and other forms of aggravated sexual assault. It seems that we are a society that is ignorant to the fact of recreational sex especially within informative media. Today if something is not exposed through ABC, Fox, or CNN I feel little is done to culturally progress the nation, no matter how many group minorities are trying to address change on the issue. Thus, progress is slow in terms of development of our culture when it comes to rape and other mainstream issues that usually remain ignorant to the larger public. It is rather paradoxical because so much of our entertainment media seems to endulge itself in the form of sexual humor, sexual issues, and other ways of conveying sexuality, so it is not necessarily a taboo in the movie theatre, yet it remains so in the kitchens and living rooms of America (where sex is probably happening anyway). If one in six women by the age of 18 are being involved in some form of sexual harassment or assault I feel it is time to bring ideas not only to females in preventing rape and other sexual atrocities, but to men too. This is stemming from the fact that men, it seems, are usually the aggressors and do not take into account a female's cognitive process, but only their own in the given moment. This awareness of not only the self, but also the potential partner could hopefully, in time, progress into a more understanding culture that does not necessarily see a woman as what they are, but as who they are, which could then be extended to how we could view everyone as an equal individual.

Law, Business, and the American Dream

Reading Posner this week made me think about laws place within America since the 19th century. As industrialism took power it seems that more legal measures were taking into account businesses and monopolies. This is not to say that there weren't social movements advocating equality for all members of society, but for what general purpose? It seems that people want to have equal obligations so that they can succeed in capitalistic endeavors. Products and advertisements, which became much more prevalent in the 20th century,  revolve in the scheme of big business and shifting the focus of how Americans view happiness and success; most now through material goods or celebrity-status. Today towards the end of class we talked about the corruption within Supreme Court decisions and how congress can hardly compromise anymore. This I ultimately feel is based on the society we are living in. As people become greedier and equate their happiness towards material and wealth, so do our politicians (for they are emerging from the same pool of citizens). This collective greed is then making policies that are failing the economy, in a large part due to corporate funding which gives corporations control, and with it the integrity and values of America.

Positivism or Interpretation?

The ideas presented by both Hart and Dworkin are rather convincing and I'm having trouble seeing who I agree with more. I understand why Dworkin would assume that interpretation would be needed in the purpose of hard cases, but it seems likely that too much subjectivity is factored in by the judge. A judge could really phrase his interpretation in whatever he seemed fit, and say it convincingly by his expertise, in how it would apply to the principles that were established and chosen. Or how could one decide what principle would outweigh another? This seems to rely solely on subjectivity, unless perhaps it was ruled by a jury on which principle needed priority. At the same time Hart's notion of 'law is law' seems to lack authority to give an answer in hard cases, but maybe this is a necessary error in terms of the legal process in promoting the law towards better and more precise decisions and regulations. Dworkin's interpretation can backfire towards biased decisions while Hart's positivism can lead to a dead end. To me the hard part of deciding who has a better qualified idea of jurisprudence is going to have to be decided by the particular court case.

A Decision Towards Freedom

As we were discussing incompletely theorized agreements it struck me that this is very similar to theatrical direction. This connection was established when we discussed how Levi and Sunstein were against general principles. To form a completely theorized agreement would really be impractical, perhaps even impossible. This is then very similar to acting because decisions need to be made in order to allow progress and change; the foundation of a direction for action must be established. Otherwise it will result in too much freedom causing chaos or unjustified behavior to ensue on stage. This runs parallel to how precedent works as dramatic action needs to correspond with a decision that will create a repeatable and orderly pattern. As Anne Bogart, a well known director states, "paradoxically, it is restrictions, the precision, the exactitude, that allows for the possibility of freedom. The form becomes a container in which the actor can find endless variations and interpretive freedom . .  this freedom can only be found within certain chosen limitations." This is in accord with how the legal process functions. A law is established and then based on precedent is repeated and interpreted based on particular cases when needed. This allows society to function in an orderly way and give freedoms and rights to citizens.

Formalism to show Absurdity

I recently read an article about a man driving in the HOV lane by himself. He had with him his corporation papers in hopes of showing that there was actually a second person in the vehicle. Now many of you have probably heard the idea that corporations are people, so what this man was trying to prove was that he was actually carpooling according to the law. This is a case I think where formalism can actually be beneficial because it is showing the ridiculousness of a previous law or the mere idea that a corporation is a person. If corporations are people then there surely must be a material manifestation of that person. The documentation seems to be the best case of this 'person' because the land and other resources of this corporation/person is merely the property of it. Do you think this man's case is valid?

Here is a link to the article and video.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/05/16372432-california-man-says-he-can-drive-in-carpool-lane-with-corporation-papers?lite

You can't change the system from within, the system changes you!

This point addressed in class on Tuesday stuck with me. It seems that if one wishes to change a system (at least radically) then one must create a whole new system. This is only because if one tries to change a system from within, then they start to adapt to the system and then won't be making change. The banker example that professor Silliman used to show how one must adapt to survive seems to be a good example, for if you don't make decisions like a banker you won't be one for very long. Does this mean that change is impossible? For instance, it surely seems like any way of trying to change capitalism will not come about by the way of the people, but only if society completely fails as a whole. This happened to the Romans; they got too big and then collapsed. Will it happen to the good old USA? Probably, and not just the U.S. but the world over. The only way to make change seems to focus on an individual that can create a new system that people would follow (and relatively quickly at the way the world's environment seems to be degrading). Perhaps this is where technology can save us. The internet seems to be a tool that could connect millions, even billions, of people instantaneously. Do you think it is possible to change a system then or will it always stay in a relatively similar parameters with rather miniscule fluctuations in terms of its mechanics?

Flexibility of the Law

When I was reading Dworkin I was really able to connect with his ideas. As an actor being flexible (not just physically, but mentally too) is a very good, but I would argue a needed, quality as it involves taking into consideration direction, character motivation, and reacting to various stimuli when in performance. Flexibility then seemed to be a very strong attribute of Dworkin's Law as Interpretation. His idea of interpretation can then be seen as when he discusses how judges need to react to various cases. They need to interpret the law, when needed, such as in hard cases. When I say flexibility I do not mean that one can do whatever one pleases as that would pragmatism which  Dworkin was against, but rather a way of making logical and rational decisions.
Aristotle discusses in his poetics that thought, the third most important aspect of tragedy, has very little to do with poetry but has very much to do with the actor. Thus, we can view that the actor can be a judge in his own sense as both are a kind of interpreter. The other two aspects of tragedy that rank higher according to Aristotle are plot and character. Plot can be seen as the case or trial, so it would follow that a case which is not a 'hard case' would not have need of interpreting and would then follow a predicted path of action. For example, most stories follow a similar pattern. Avatar for instance is no more than a hyped up version of Pocahontas. This is just one example but many more can be seen if one looks closely enough, especially in religious stories. Hopefully this kind of makes sense because what is trial but an analysis of a modern day tragedy (the magnitude of the tragedy depending on the action of the case itself or whether it is a town or the Supreme court).
Another way I was thinking about Dworkin was comparing his idea of law to the idea of a tree. Each new growth of a limb will effect the next branch and twig, which relates to how judges must interpret previous cases and the whole of the law (the tree) itself. In terms of a goal within law of interpretation, we can bring into account Plato and find that the law (the tree) is trying to reach towards goodness (the Sun) as Wacks had written on Dworkin, "It [law] adopts a constructive approach in that it seeks to improve our lives and our community." So to me, law of interpretation is the most organic sense of law (at least from what I've read so far) as it is able to grow freely by what is best for the community and the citizen. This would be compared to legal positivism, which if it was a tree would die probably quickly because if a big gust of wind came by it would snap it due to it having no flexibility. Maybe law doesn't necessarily work like that . . but maybe it does! Regardless, I feel flexibility is a needed trait in the law for it to arise to new and ever changing conditions of the material world.

Inequality in America?

As we were comparing the differences of the United States and Switzerland, I thought this article would be a good way to highlight some of these very drastic inequalities in our own country.

The Extremist Cult of Capitalism

Introduction

Hello!

My name is Tom Leidenfrost and this is my last semester at MCLA. I am an FPA: Theater Concentration who has a strong interest in both performance and life. My yearning to understand came about through theater which I started participating in around 10th grade. Further along in high school I was introduced to philosophical principles and ideas during my senior year. Since then I've been trying to understand why I act and what it can do to benefit people by investigating and converging various aspects of life. This is why I am happy to have had a liberal arts education as it allowed me to connect ideas that I would not have thought were possible. To me theater and philosophy are almost one and the same for both are in the pursuit of truth. Thus the art of questioning and thinking are fundamental to both fields. This is why I decided to get a philosophy minor and why I am in the course. It will be interesting to see what connections I can draw into my future work from the knowledge gained in this class.