The Logic of Collective Action

 The reason the state cannot survive on voluntary dues or paymens, but must rely on taxation, is that the most fundamental services a nation-state provides are, in one important respect, like the higher price in a competitive market: they must be available to everyone if they are available to anyone. The basic and most elementary goods or services provided by government, like defense and police protection, and the system of law and order generally, are such that they go to everyone or practically everyone in the nation. It would obviously not be feasible, if indeed it were possible, to deny the protection provided by the military services, the police, and the courts to those who did not voluntarily pay their share of the costs of government, and taxation in accordingly necessary. The common or collective benefits provided by governments are usually called "public goods" by economists, and the concept of public goods is one of the oldest and most important ideas in the study of public finance. A common, collective, or public good is here defined as any good such that, if any person xi, in a group X11,...,xi,...xn consumes it, it cannot feasibly be withheld from the others in that group. In other words, those who do not purchase or pay for any of the public or collective good cannot be excluded or kept from sharing in the consumption of the good, as they can where non collective goods are concerned.
 If the state left dues voluntarily there would be no concrete income because there might be little or none at all. The reason why the state relies on government is for many of their services such as protection, goods and law. If it was left a choice to contribute, things that taxes contribute to, for example law, would not be available to everyone. It would not be readily and easy to obtain services like these. These collective benefits provided by the government are called "public goods". Any good that is used by a group cannot be easily withheld within that group, therefore everyone must participate.
  I chose this passage because I think that this is a reasonable due. Although, I agree and disagree with the exact amounts for the due, I think it is important in day to day basis. It helps with the services required for a functional government. Without many of these services I think we would not rely on protection, justice and order. People will do as they please and I think at that point costs would even be much higher then at present, we would be a disfuctional society. I do think we can do better but costs are not our decision but government.

Roe v. Wade

 The court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgement of the pregnant woman's doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interest in the mother's health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding the third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. 

 These decisions were made based on the stages of pregnancies, first second and third as well as protecting the life or health of the mother. It was decided that in the first and second trimester of abortion the decision would be left up to the doctor providing care wether the mother decides to opt for an abortion. However, in the third trimester states may argue their interest and even prevent abortion if is in favor of the mother's well being. That being said it is ultimately the right of the mother to her pregnancy against state action based on the 14th amendment. 

 I chose this passage because I think it is a fair act. I am not in favor of abortion. However, I support special cases in which women are victims and therefore are imposed to opt out for abortions. It is a right to choose wether or not you keep a child but if it is harmful to the mother or the baby the decision should be left up to the parents accordingly to the doctors best medical advise . 

John F. Kennedy

 With such a peace, the will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and

nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each men love his neighbor, it

requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their dilutes to a just and peaceful

settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last

forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring

surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not

be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it

seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to

move irresistibly towards it.

 Being at peace with someone does not indicate there will be no disagreements. There will always be

some type of conflict as there is with family and nations. World peace does not require that you love

each other, but that there is mutual respect. Resentment does not last forever as we can see that in

historical times. Despite personal opinion and thoughts, changes in how we feel towards a particular

view change and we learn to accept or rather respect them. Don't let peace be impossible and war

unavoidable. Lets be more positive and help others understand and view peace as an option rather

than resulting directly to war.

 I chose this passage because it is crucial in the world today. Governments do not talk peace in society

today. Instead stories and lies that build hate are being told to the people in order for them to carry out

with their plans. We are not being told the truth nor facts, but what is beneficial for them. There has to

be peace in order for a future. We cannot continue to be at war. We are killing our men and destroying

families for what purpose? It is unfair to let our soldiers, sisters, brothers, family, friends, die. If

instead we chose to be rational and come up with solutions rather than sought out to weaponry.

Democrats won in 9 of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans

 This speaks to the notion that the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a safe seat but to put

your opponents in safe seats by cramming all of their supporters into a small number of districts. This

lets you spread your own supporters over a larger number of districts. And the way to do this is to

draw outlandishly-shaped districts that bring far-flung geographic areas together. North Carolina's

12th district, which holds the title of the nation's most-gerrymandered, is a textbook example of this:

It snakes from north of Greensboro, to Winston-Salem, and then all the way down to Charlotte,

spanning most of the state in the process.

 Gerrymandering works for the party that designs a particular district. The more spread out your

seats are the more electoral advantage you have. The plan is to give your opponent less seats but

making them feel confident by having more supporters within smaller districts. The more oddly

shaped and widely spread states, indicate more gerrymandering. An example would be the passage

above how Democrats won the 9 of the 10 districts because they were designed by their opponent

party. North Carolina's 12th district from Greensboro more widespread districts are part of the nations

most gerrymandered states.

 You can conclude that based on the information given the number of supporters is not a factor. You

might think and feel comfortable if you do but it is what gerrymandering is about. Having a large

number of supporters within a small district will not help if your number of seats are small.However,

the number of seats you have per district is what will give you the electoral advantage. Boundaries

are drawn to benefit a party disadvantaging their opponent party. I don't think this should be how

electing should take place but it is one of the methods used today and has increased over the years.

Citizenship and Social Class

 Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who posses the 

status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the statuses endowed. There is no 

universal principle that determines what those rights and duties shall be, but societies in which 

citizenship is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which 

achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed. The urge forward along 

the path thus plotted is an urge towards a fuller measure of equality, an enrichment of the stuff of 

which the status is made and an increase in the number of those whom the status is bestowed. Social 

class, on the other hand, is a system of inequality. And it too, like citizenship, can be based on a set of 

ideals, beliefs and values. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the impact of citizenship on social

class take the form of a conflict between opposing principles. If I am right in my contention that the

citizenship has been a developing institution in England at least since the latter part of the seventeen

century, then it is clear that its growth coincides with the rise of capitalism, which is a system, not of

equality, but of inequality. Here is something that needs explaining. How is it that these two 

opposing principles could grow and flourish side by side in the same oil? What made it possible for 

them to be reconciled with one another and to become, for a time at least, allies instead of antagonist?

 The question is a pertinent one, for it is clear that, in the twentieth century, citizenship and capitalist 

class system have been at war.

 Citizenship is based on the way of living. Societies display an image of what a citizen should be, 

have and work towards to, to be a good citizen. To do these things and more will make a citizen feel 

accomplished. Social class is not as equal as being a citizen. Everyone has different beliefs and values 

which may arise conflicts between each other. The systems created are not meant to be equal but 

rather the opposite. Citizenship and Socialism should be two matters worked together instead of 

against another.

  I think that citizenship and socialism are really important factors amongst residents and should be 

taken more seriously. We should be more involved in whats going on around us so that we can be 

better prepared. However as far as these systems working together I don't think we will ever achieve 

that for the simple fact of this countries diversity. But, I do believe more factors should be taken into 

consideration leaving out religion, which is too controversial in itself. We have to demand our rights 

and work as a community.

 Revisiting the Constitution: Clarify What's Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 As I have suggested elsewhere, clarifying and expanding the Eight Amendment could help. It should specifically state that excessive terms of incarceration are prohibited, just as it bans excessive fines. It should expressly prohibit mandatory sentences so that every case gets the benefit of individualized attention by a judge. And it should insist that legislatures create a record showing that they considered empirical evidence about the law's likely impact.
 The eight amendment should be revised and further detailed. Long sentencing should be banned and further shortened. There should be no mandatory laws so each case can be given the opportunity to be exhaustive. She states how this is contradicting to the Eight Amendment Bill of Rights.
 I chose this quote because i agree with Barkow. I think that imprisonment for certain cases should not be excessive. Each case is different and many which are overlooked and proven to be judged incorrectly. I also think that depending on the crime committed a sentence should be shorter and a second chance should be given with in a shorter time frame.

The constitution and federalist

The second article deals with the executive branch of government headed by the president of the United States. This article explains the controversial electoral college, an institution that was set up to prevent presidential elections from being decided directly by the people. Instead votes are allocated based upon a number of "electoral votes" possessed by the individual states not by the  people of the states. So when we count the results of the election we count the states the president won, not the people who voted for the president. This system tends to benefit the less popular candidate: some elections that were very close in terms of popular vote seemed like huge victories in terms of electoral votes, some have even lost the popular vote and still won int the electoral college like George Bush in 2000 ( even counting Florida, Bush still lost the popular vote, however the results of that election are too distorted to use this as a good example of "winning" the electoral college while losing the popular vote).                                                                                                                                      The second article consists of the executive branch of government. The second article was set up so that the votes are not directly by the people, but instead by state. Votes are based on electoral votes by state not by each individual. This may sometimes help the less popular candidate because the votes are not based on population. Some states have larger populations than others so while you may have the majority of votes in one state you may not have the majority in other ( small states) which will lower your chances of getting elected.                                                                                                             I chose this passage because I was not familiar with the voting system. I asked many people I knew if they would vote and their response was " no, my vote doesn't count and therefore I'm not voting". In a sense I see their point of view because although your vote is somewhat used it is still not completely counted, I would say it is partially counted. I don't think that this is a fair system because every vote should count.