PHI 406 - Reading Response 3

In the selection by Nozick, we examined how to create a system of third-party judgement that will be fair to all people.  Nozick states, “(E)veryone has the right to defend against procedures that are in fact not, or not known to be, both reliable and fair.” Nozick makes it clear that the “protective agency” that he defined earlier in the selection is working, largely on the basis that they are in the right and others are not.  Nozick clarifies this statement by saying,

If the protective agency deems the independents’ procedures for enforcing their own rights insufficiently reliable or fair when applied to its clients, it will prohibit the independents from such self-help enforcement.

               But what are we supposed to do when the system of justice IS largely unfair to a segment of our society?  What do we make of strong-arming citizens without cause?  How do we address the systemic injustices in our legal system that the modern-day movement “Black Lives Matter” has brought to light?  Does a fair justice system exist for people of color?   

               Nozick makes concessions for possible abuses, stating that an “unreliable enforcer of justice” should be punished for causing fear in the general populations.  He also provides details of financially compensating the sufferer of an unfair justice system.  He acknowledges that a system where the justice system unfairly targets citizens, to the point that they will be reluctant to participate in the society as they would feel victimized by such a society, which is the claim of “Black Lives Matter.”  It would have been obvious to Nozick that the current legal system is balanced unfairly against people of color, and that there are many injustices committed by our system of justice.

               

               So, what can we do?  Nozick suggests that we punish the members of our justice system who are treating people of color unfairly, but this is a rather utopian ideal with all of the state sanctioned violence committed against people of color that is allowed to exist, even with body cams.  Bringing these people to justice is largely an exercise in futility with all of the unions and friends in higher places.  Maybe Nozick is right that the citizens need to install their own system of government rather than have an unfair one passed down the generations.  Maybe it’s time for a complete overhaul of the justice system.  It’s a lofty goal, but it is the only response suggested by the author.  Perhaps we should consider Anarchy.  It can’t be any worse than what we have now.

---------
Grade: 9/10
No Professor Comments.

PHI 406 - Reading Response 2

In his writing “Second Treatise of Government,” John Locke attempts to outline how governments are formed using Social Contract Theory. He discusses that many governments are formed with a leader, who he likens to a father, noting that the first leader of a group of people is usually the father of the family, and that it is he (the father) who makes the rules that the rest of the family must follow, allowing for a sovereign ruler to take the place of a father on a grander scale. He goes on to describe that the only true government is formed when a group of men consent to being governed. Governance doesn’t just happen. He states that a “freeman” has no reason to be subjected to the laws of a given territory unless by consent, and that he can, at any time, move on to a different land and/or form a different government if he so chooses. But this, he states, is not applicable to our progeny. Locke states:

A child is born subject to no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to age of discretion; then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for is an Englishman’s son, born in France, be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father’s being a subject of (England); nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. (p. 63)

This is a very different outlook than the one we have currently. In America, a child born within our borders is considered as having American citizenship, thus being subject to our laws and privileges, even if the parents are not citizens. Currently, the Trump Administration is dealing with an industry built around pregnant women who come to the United States just to give birth to their babies. Upon birth on American soil, these infants are granted American citizenship automatically, even if their parents are not citizens themselves. This is being called “birth tourism” by the press.

Locke would not have agreed with this kind of transfer of citizenship, stating, “Nothing can make any man (a subject of that commonwealth) but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact” (p. 64). To Locke, this idea that non-Americans can fly to the United States, give birth within our borders, and the newborn child will automatically receive American citizenship was ludicrous. To him, there could not be citizenship without government, and government couldn’t exist without consent from the people who formed the government, consent that a child cannot give, “else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing and be no compact” (p. 56).

----------------
Grade: 10/10
No professor comments.