Erika's post on equality

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-affirmative-action-20151209-story.html

The article above talks about affirmative action and whether or not it is constitutional. The article specifically talks about the decision of the supreme court about The University of Texas's policy. The school argued that it was not needed anymore due to the law that guarantees the top 10% of each high will be accepted, of which one third have been African American and Latino. Others who opposed the idea of doing away with it say it helps those who would normally be discriminated against (whether it be conscious or subconscious). This however is the second time the supreme court has heard this case, the first being two years ago. They ended up sending it to a lower court to figure it out.

This speaks to what we talked about in our class discussions about race, affirmative action, and Mills' racial contract. I think it is important to keep in place because if one school gets to remove it many others will want to. Also we do not live in the color blind society that we wish we did, people are stereotyped by their race. For African Americans and other minorities this hurts their chances of getting into higher education. We discussed in class about whether it created or destroyed equality. I believe that it creates equality by giving everyone a chance at achieving their highest potential. I would also fear about what would happen if a very racist school was allowed to get rid of affirmative action because others had. It would lead to no minorities being accepted to that school. Mills also mentions the economic inequalities between whites and African Americans. I believe that this is due to the inequalities of education, which is being counteracted by affirmative action.

Gender Inequality

The article I read discusses the wage gap between genders, and how, if narrowed, it can increase the money going into the global economy. the article goes on to discuss the 15 indicators of gender equality for a wide array of groups in 95 countries. The countries were then measured for their distance from gender parity. Western Europe was 0.71 meaning it was 0.29 from 1, which is the perfect score. That means that even more developed countries still have a big gap for gender parity. The article continued to say that if countries around the world would improve there inequality between genders, then the GDP will rise because of the narrow gap, and more opportunities will arise.

This article reminded me if Susan Moller Okin's complaint on Gender inequality. She said that family life is unequal, meaning that a man and a woman are not treated the same, and that things need to change. I believe that Okin is right in that statement, however the plausibility of the gender gap narrowing is unplausible because, sadly, the world is not taking steps to improve the equality. women are being told that they belong in certain jobs that dont use too much strength or brains. This is similar to women in Military roles. they are being restricted or coerced into not being in direct combat, because they are supposedly physically weaker than men, which is not always the case. I believe that we need to  work on bringing the gender parity gap closer so that at least the education worldwide provided for women and men can be increased.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19e105ca-9a7c-11e5-be4f-0abd1978acaa.html#axzz3tegTOLb2

Blum tries to get rid of the fourteenth amendment

https://newrepublic.com/article/124955/next-supreme-court-challenge-equality-americans

The article I read discussed a man who is known as a political mastermind. He is known for gathering plaintiffs, counsels, ad helps finance litigation in order to try and move the law or make the law more conservative in terms of race and voting. Ed Blum wants to get rid of the fourteenth amendment in order to assure that un-naturalized immigrants, children and others equal representation in America in state legislatures. Blum as started a case known as Enwel vs. Abbott whose main goal is to change the rules for state legislative redistricting. "Blum’s argument is that unnaturalized immigrants, children, and other who lack access to the ballot should not be counted for purposes of legislative representation, which would unquestionably result in a major shift in political power away from urban population centers toward the whiter, more rural areas of the state." It seems Blum's main goal is to allow inequality in voting.

I think this piece connects to Cohen's idea of moral right on the right wing. Cohen uses Robert Nozick to explain moral right. Robert Nozick explains moral right as the idea that everyone as full power over themselves and asserts that everyone else has power over themselves as well. However, he later explains that even though others are entitled,because of their self- ownership no one is entitled without my consent to press into their own or anyone else's service.  I think Blum has this right wing idea of moral right. I feel he believes it is his moral right over himself and over others to try and to limit equality among voters.  I think he shows a sense of entitled power. He feels entitled to limit others voting for his own personal gain.

Devon's Equality Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marty-knollenberg-african-americans-white_56631e64e4b072e9d1c66d9d?ir=Politics&section=politics

This article elaborates on a Michigan State hearing regarding academic performance among different demographic groups within the state. The hearing made news and caused much controversy because state senator, Marty Knollenberg, was quoted saying that the reason for the academic disparities were due to the fact that "we can't make an African-American white". The purpose of the hearing was to break down all the data from Michigan schools and their data showed that race had nothing to do with the disparity in academic performance. Knollenberg has come under fire for his racist comments but has stated that his remarks were taken out of context and his only concerns are with improving education for all students. Another quote from Knollenberg: "You mention why these schools districts fail, and you mention economically disadvantaged and non-white population are contributors to that. And we can’t fix that. We can’t make an African-American white," he said at the meeting. "That's just, it is what it is."

Immediately after reading Senator Knollenberg's comments I thought of Mills' Racial Contract, specifically about how racism is institutionalized and how racism isn't necessarily a problem with the individual but society itself. Looking at both the quotes from the Michigan senator it is easy to point fingers at him and say that he is the problem and the reason racism is such a problem in America however, I would argue and i think Mills would argue, that the issue lies within the education system itself. Equality is never really talked about in school, which results in an environment that discrimination and racist comments are accepted. Our history of colonialism and slavery also play a key role into our acceptance of racism. But again that problem does not lie with the individual but the structure of society that allows racism to exist. It allows us to create stereotypes about different groups of people, similar to the stereotypes of African-Americans contribution to poor academic performance and low economic status that Knollenberg commented on. Until we try to fix racism at an institutional level and not an individual level it will never be fixed. We must look within our educational,economic, and political systems to change the way race is seen in our society.

Hyla Equality Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-reynolds/school-to-prison_b_8108068.html

This article is about the school-to-prison pipeline and how this is a form of institutionalized racism. The school-to-prison pipeline is a trend in American education that students are sent straight from the classroom into the prison system. This phenomenon is based in strict policies in schools that criminalize certain behaviors, such as graffiti or even just violating the dress code. Many times there are police on campus to monitor and oversee these violations. Most students who are affected by the school-to-prison pipeline are minorities who come from low-income backgrounds. The school-to-prison pipeline becomes a form of institutionalized racism as it mostly affects and targets minorities in poor neighborhoods. This school-to-prison pipeline is taking young minority students out of school and into the prison system. Therefore removing them from society and taking away their chance for education.

This article reminded me of Mills’ “The Racial Contract” in which he describes how racism is actually institutionalized and our society is structured on racism. Although this school-to-prison pipeline does not seem like it would purposely target students of color, that it would target everyone who commits these violations it equally, it does not. This police surveillance and harsh policies are much more likely in schools that are in more low-income areas. Also as a result of institutionalized racism it is often times minorities who live in these low-income areas. They, therefore, are the ones who are getting caught up in the school-to-prison pipeline. I personally think it is crazy that a student should get a criminal record and face jail time for something such as breaking the school dress code, or other minor infractions. This school-to-prison pipeline takes that violation and makes the student become a part of the criminal justice system, instead of just dealing with it as a school issue. This results in a huge number of students being taken out of schools and put into prisons.

Gender Equality in the Military

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/women-in-combat-jobs.html

This article discusses the recent decision made by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter that will allow women to serve on the front lines in military combat. Mr. Carter announced that "as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before." The US is following in the footsteps of other countries such as Canada, Israel, and France, where women are allowed in military combat roles.

(This map shows which countries allowed women to serve in all combat roles in 2013.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/25/map-which-countries-allow-women-in-front-line-combat-roles/

In my opinion, if a woman is able to meet the standards, she should be able to serve. However, this also brings up issues like sexual assault and discrimination within the military itself. Although the article did not mention this, I think that it is very important to acknowledge. It reminds me of Okin's false gender neutrality- even though women are now legally permitted to serve in combat roles, they will still face many problems from inside the military that need to be addressed.

Guatemala and Power

Anchal Kannambadi

Article: http://panampost.com/carlos-sabino/2015/11/16/foreign-aid-bankrolls-violence-in-guatemala/

This article is about the Norwegian Embassy, and how they are attempting to aid Guatemala in their Oil export, however they seem to have a political agenda, and are causing more violence between Guatemalans. The Norwegians believe that they are working well with the people, however they have restricted the growth of the Guatemalans instead. Since Guatemala has a complicated political system, the Norwegians do not realize that they are promoting extremist groups, which causes more harm.  The Norwegian embassy has the intent to help finance and support the “indigenous communities” within Guatemala, but they are not realizing that their money is going towards organizations that “treat conflict as a profession.” At the end of the article, it is stated that the Norwegian embassy has realized that their involvement with Guatemala is not beneficial, and they have ended their experiment.

This article reminds me of our discussion on War, Politics, and Power, in which we talked about how Power and violence tend to go hand in hand. Although Norway wants to help out Guatemala, they are harming them more, because Norway, which is a democratic country, seems to want to advance their allies and political agenda, but they are causing more harm. I see this idea as something similar to what Michael Foucault believed which was how 'we cannot have perfect knowledge of the world  because everything we know is filtered through biases.' Norway seems to want to help out Guatemala, but their "idea" of what is considered helping, does not seem to help anyone. Foucault's idea on power also is that power is about reaching goals, and although Norway has the right idea of funding other third-world countries, they were not doing it for the benefit of the Guatemalans rather it was for the benefit of the Norwegians. 

Devon's Power Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-attacks-survivors-stories_5647688ce4b06037734952ed?ir=WorldPost&section=world

The article above discusses the bombings in Paris, that occurred late last week. It gives detailed description from a survivor's point of view of how violent the attacks really were and what it felt like to be there and experience an actual terrorist attack. Survivor's go into detail about how their normal Friday activities turned into a violent bloodbath creating mass panic and chaos. It highlights how gruesome and merciless the gunmen were.


After reading this article it greatly reminded me of our discussion about Fanon and the use of violence to gain power. I think this specifically relates to Fanon's idea that power means normalizing violence, which is exhibited in all terrorist organizations. This perpetuation of violence to gain power is not only illustrated from the terrorist's side but from the victim's side as well. The French government's response to the Islamic State's attack on its capital was to have a "merciless" response, showing that France needed to prove it was still a powerful nation through its ability to be even more violent than the attacks on France. It also shows how violence is effective because by creating all this panic and death through violence it brings all this attention to terrorists and gets their message across. I think this shows why violence is such a popular method in asserting power because it creates a statement that is hard to ignore and there are instant results. I think this also plays into Thucydides' discussion on the use of discursive power vs power of persuasion. We now tend to rely on violent discursive power to solve our conflicts instead of use our diplomatic power. This shows why nations across the world are being more militarized and are more likely to use violent action than peaceful inaction.

Hyla Power post

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/cpi-corruption-index-integrity-states

This article is about government corruption happening in every state. This assessment of corruption occurring in state governments was done by the Integrity Investigation, a project released by the nonprofit investigative reporting group the Center for Public Integrity. They worked with experienced journalists in every state to assess state government rules and systems that were in place between January 2013 and March 2015. They gave each state a score based on their “transparency,” “ethics” and “accountability.” The results they found were very surprising. The highest grade they gave to a state was a C, which was given to Alaska. Only two other states received a score higher than a D+, meaning that the other 47 states got a D, or below for their level of corruption.

            This article reminded me of Plato’s “Apology of Socrates.” Socrates believed that political power corrupted men and, therefore, men should avoid politics. This article proves Socrates point that many people in politics are corrupt, as seen by the evidence that most state governments are infiltrated with a lot of corruption. These results are pretty depressing and make it seem like there are not any good politicians out there and they all are unjust. Do you all agree that once someone enters into the political world it is hard for him or her to not act in a corrupt way? It seems that everyone enters into politics with good intentions, but often times get greedy with their power and take advantage of it. What do you all think?

Obama to send troops to Syria to fight ISIS

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/

The above article discusses how Barack Obama has authorized for troops to be sent to Syria to fight ISIS.  The troops will advise and assist rebel forces who are fighting ISIS.  This will be the most significant escalation of US troops for ISIS to date.  There has been talk that the small ops would not be sufficient but Josh Earnest, the secretary of press, has rejected those claims. He argued that anywhere where Us troops are deployed, they are a force multiplier. There has also been backlash from many Republican candidates on Obama's decision to employ troops to Syria.

The backlash that Obama has been receiving reminds me of Machiavelli's idea of whether rulers should value the idea of love or fear. He argues that rulers should rather be feared than loved if it comes down to making beneficial decisions for their citizens.  I do not know too much about the problem in Syria(which I am working on educating myself about) but I do believe in this idea that rulers should make decisions that others may fear or think is wrong if it may be beneficial The only thing I do not like about this idea is that this makes the assumption that the ruler in charge knows everything and what is right. I think this idea is wrong because everyone in charge does not necessarily know everything or make the right decisions. Everyone can be critiqued.  WHat do you guys think?

Erika's power post

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/donald-trump-small-loan-town-hall/

The link above is about Trump's 'small' loan of one million dollars. He was trying to say that he started out with very little like everyone else, but he made something of himself by working hard. He is trying to gain power through more voters and thinks that saying he struggled in life  will win him more votes, even if that struggle was to the tune of $1 million from his dad. He is attempting to use his speeches to garner voters, he thinks that the best way to gain voters, and in the end power, is speaking. He has very strong beliefs that become evident every time he speaks and this seems to be working for him because he is always on top of the polls. This is only one example of things Trump has said that leave some people with a confused expression on their faces and others following him blindly.

Thrucydides believes that power rests in the ability to not just speak but to be listened to. Power is when people will do what ever you say because you said it. Trump has the ear of many conservative republicans in the country. These people will do anything and everything for him. There are people who believe that he did struggle to stretch the $1 million dollars to create his business and pay his dad back. Others think he is crazy for saying that he struggled in life and used the example of getting a $1 million loan from his dad to back it up. People feel this way because they know that $1 million is more than some people see in their whole life. Thrucydides knew that the way to power was not through violence and fear, but through speaking. If people believe you they are more likely to do what you say. If your speech is empowering, encouraging, and/or meaningful in any way then people will listen to and follow you without hesitation.

The Militarization of US Foreign Policy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfBXw_yPmU

In this video, military analyst Andrew Bacevich discusses how US foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military action in place of diplomacy. This increase towards militarization has not only affected military leaders in the Pentagon, but has also influenced the thinking of civilian leaders (such as in the State Department) in making foreign policy decisions. Bacevich argues that even if the diplomacy-oriented Department of State was able to have more influence over the Department of Defense in foreign policymaking, leaders would still opt for military solutions as they are seen as more efficient than negotiations and treaties.

This video reminded me of the discussion we had in class on Friday about discursive power vs. military power. Although using military power in conflicts with other countries may seem faster and more effective at first, it has much harsher consequences, such as worsening relationships with other countries that may effect the United States later on. This also poses the question of when to use military intervention vs. when to use diplomacy. I believe that using military force should be seen as a last resort, and that the US is not making full use of its diplomatic powers and instead using military threats to achieve our policy goals.

Doomsday prediction or proof that expanding in arts and sciences is a negative act?

http://www.livescience.com/52399-doomsday-revised-world-will-end-october-7.html

The above article discusses how on October 7, 2015 the world is (was) supposed to end. The ending of the world was a prediction made by now deceased preacher Harold Camping followers. Harold Camping originally predicted the world would end on October 21, 2011. However, some of his followers have recalculated his findings and conclude that the end of the word should've happened on October 7, 2015. Camping and his followers are not the first to predict the end of the world. A lot of religious groups have come up with different dates and years as to when the world was going to end or when God was going to come back and save the saved and banish to bad people to hell.

As I recall some of the other groups that have predicted a doomsday I couldn't help but think of Rousseau's claim that the arts and sciences are or have had negative effects on us. I also couldn't help but think of his idea that simple man is selfish and morally corrupt. To me, it seems like the expansion of science and discovery of artifacts such as the Mayan calendar as well as religion has created this whole idea of doomsday. However, the intent behind announcing a doomsday always seems to spread religious beliefs as well which makes me question whether or not the sciences have made people morally corrupt as far as spreading their belief and for personal gain. Also, I was reading another article where supposedly  man has brought an HIV/AIDS medicine company and has raised the price to about $700 per a pill. Small things like these I wonder how Rousseau would feel about them. What do you guys think about people taking modern da advances in arts and sciences and twisting them for their own advantage?

Freedom Post - Erika

Do School Shootings Show Our Freedom or Lack There of?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-day-another-tragic-school-shooting/2015/10/09/62f5077c-6eb5-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

The article above discusses the high frequency of school shootings. We hear about these multiple times a year, the article says that there have been 52 school shootings just this year. This number keeps rising, as seen by there being 149 school shootings since 2013. Meaning that just this year alone we have had 1/3 of all the school shootings in the past 2 years. We discussed the government taking away freedoms while ensuring others. This article takes a political stance saying asking when will the government start caring about the lives lost over how many assault weapons they want. I think that the protection of the country as a whole should be the top priority of the government, but right now all I see every time I turn on or read the news is another fatal shooting, sometimes with the caption 'only one person was fatally shot' why is one person dying a good thing?

In today's society there is a lot of controversy over certain freedoms. We discussed in class about whether the government gives us freedoms or limits them. The bill of rights was brought up, saying that these were the freedoms that the US government isn't allowed to take away from us. However they have been interpreted differently throughout the history of the country. Now I know that the second amendment gives us the freedom to own a gun, but as discussed in class in regards to speed limits 'we have the freedom to not die'. If these are both true then why are so many people dying because of guns?  I think that one freedom should not compromise another yet here we are at what feels like a paradox, no one wants to give up their machine guns or die. Like Rousseau thought technology ruins us, unfortunately we have never realize it before it's to late. I think that in light of school shootings Rousseau was right.

Freedom Post- Sammy

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/09/how-should-the-news-media-cover-mass-shooters/taking-a-different-ethical-approach-in-the-media-coverage-of-mass-shooters

This debate article by Mark Follman discusses whether or not media outlets should publicly report the names of mass shooters after a shooting. The author argues that although these news outlets have every right to do so, there is forensic evidence that mass shooters of today will try and act in a similar manner to other famous mass shooters in the past, and by withholding information about these shooters, it is possible that we can reduce the number of mass shootings in the future. Publishing many of these shooters manifestos online for anyone to read can be a dangerous thing. Although the majority of people will read them and be disgusted, it is possible that it could inspire one person to be the next killer.

The issue of restricting media reminded me of Rousseau's thoughts on the general will and how much freedom the media and the public should have in scenarios like this, especially with the high amount of mass shootings that occur in the Unites States each year. The public may demand to know information about the shooter, but is it in their best interest if it may put them in danger in the future? Follman admits that it is likely impossible that the media will restrict all information about these mass shooters, but this still raises the question of whether or not freedom of press will be jeopardized if the media chooses to withhold information. People may demand that the media give us more information on the shooters, but I believe that this is an example where the common interest of the community is more important that the rights of the individual. If shifting focus away from the names and manifestos of mass shooters could prevent killings in the future, I think it is worth it.

Freedom post- Hyla

http://o.canada.com/news/video-american-inequality-explained-with-lego

This video I watched in my social analysis class, demonstrates the income inequality/opportunity in America and the major income disparity between the rich and the poor. In an equal society the wealth in America would be divided equally between the 5 classes in America- lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class. However, that is not at all what our wealth distribution looks like. Instead the upper class has 52% of the wealth, the upper middle class has 20%, the middle class has 14%, the lower middle has 10%, and the lower class has 5% of the wealth. This, although uneven, makes sense that the upper class would have more wealth than the lower classes. What is not fair, however, is how hard upward mobility is in our society. In a perfect world, it would not matter which social class you were born into; you would have the same chance of making it to the upper class as anyone else. This is not the society we live in. instead, only 1 in 10 born into the lower class have a chance of making it into the upper class. The video goes on to explain how certain factors make it even more difficult to obtain social mobility.  I really recommend watching this video so you can see it all visually displayed.

This video remained me of our discussion of Locke’s views on property. I immediately thought of the quote by him that property is “for the industrious and rational, not the quarrelsome and contentious.” If you work hard you will have a lot of property and possessions, so if you are poor that just means you are lazy. I think this is the way a lot of people think. Many come to America for the “American Dream” and believe if you put in the hard work you will have a good, financially successful life. While that once may have been the case, it is not in today’s society. As that video demonstrated the upper class have a monopoly on the wealth in America. Someone who works a 40-hour workweek, but is only making minimum wage still may be living in poverty. Although they may spend most of their day working they still may not even be able to afford a roof over their head. They also have only a 1 in 10 chance of moving upward in class. How would John Lock feel about today’s unfair wealth distribution and the fact that someone may work as hard as they can, but still be living be below the poverty line and struggling to survive?

Freedom and Social Contract

Anchal Kannambadi 

Article: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/ontario-teacher-fired-over-racist-tweets-204659364.html

The article above talks about how a Richmond Hill teacher was fired for tweeting racist slurs, and anti-Muslim statements, and how that teacher was required to follow an “unwritten social contract” that prohibited the inappropriate use of language and offensive materials. The article goes on to say that there is a higher standard that teachers are held to, and that they are responsible for teaching and influencing other students. That being said, this teacher violated the trust that comes along with being a teacher, and they were fired as a result of that.

This relates to what we talked about in class on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his idea of a Social Contract. Teachers are influential on students, and therefore they have to keep their opinions strictly objective, otherwise they are considered unprofessional. When you join a society, you are giving up a certain freedom, because you are adapting to the rules. This teacher violated both the social contract, and the liberties and requirements that a role model has in society. In class we discussed the idea that there is a general will or common interest in a community. In this situation the common interest is not being partial or ignorant towards anyone. One question I would like to ask is if you believe that there is a limit to freedom of speech, or should there be a restriction for certain members of a community. 

Freedom Post- Devon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pharrell-freedom-video_55b11623e4b08f57d5d3d9f1

The link above is a very short article from the Huffington Post that briefly talks about singer Pharrell's music video for his new single "Freedom". The video shows many powerful clips of injustices and restrictions on freedom that occur all around the world. Some of the most powerful images include women working in sweatshops, men working in mining fields, and extreme poverty stricken neighborhoods. The clips are mixed with images of animals in the wild and nature functioning by itself without human involvement.

Immediately after and even during my viewing of this music video the first thing that came to mind was Rousseau's idea of freedom and his belief of man's dominance in his primitive state. Specifically Rousseau's assertion that the natural man will always win and how man that exists in society is a corrupted form of man. By entering into a society with government it results in destructive products like sweatshops and slave labor that are the product of "the most powerful...having made their strength or their needs a sort of right to another's goods" (Rousseau, 101). This means that the one's in power, or in the one's who have property, take freedom away from those who don't have power/property and take advantage of them. Once men enter into a society that is ruled by property and law it results in a "weak voice of justice, made men greedy, ambitious, and evil" (Rousseau, 101) and ultimately destroys man. Pharell's use of nature and animals in their wild habitats reinforces Rousseau's beliefs that natural man is the only form where man is actually free because he is not restricted.

Justice post

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/18/kyrgyzstan-s-anti-gay-law-will-likely-pass-next-month-but-has-already-led-to-violence.html

This article is about how the country Kyrgyzstan will likely soon pass and anti-gay law. In Kyrgyzstan a bill must go through three rounds before it is passed. The anti-gay bill has already gone through two rounds. Its first round it was voted 79 to 7 and its second round it was 90 to 2 in favor of passing the bill. It seems the majority of the parliament is in favor of passing this bill. This bill would “ban the existence of LGBT organizations, shutter gay clubs, and most notably, could result in one-year prison sentences for those found guilty of propagating non-traditional sexual relations.” Violence against the LGBT community in Kyrgyzstan is already a major issue and the passing of this bill will only make it worse.

This article reminded me of our discussion of Locke on Friday. It seems like a lot of the class agreed with what Lock had to say. However, the one issue I have with Locke is his focus on majority rule. This article is an example on where majority rule might have negative consequences. In this case, the majority of the Kyrgyzstan government is in favor of passing the anti-gay law. By passing this law this would severely harm the rights of the LGBT minority in Kyrgyzstan and put them in danger. I found this to be a big flaw in Locke’s ideas. I know sometimes this is also an issue in our government where minorities’ rights may not be represented. Do you guys think we should just go along with what the majority rules because it is the majority? Or should there be a focus on minority rights as well?