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