Close

Here is a link to the 12-page google doc containing roughly the same content as all posts combined (minus some corrections). It does not contain pictures of the tweets or titles of the posts.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOxe5ORdwLoN_4K-Z3Td2ZB4bSuae8XM0BnJfRfs9Nw/edit?usp=sharing

This concludes this blog and project.


Thank you for reading,

Bronson Torres
CSU 2020, Political Science; Sociology
bronsonftorres@gmail.com

Censorship

In this post, I will be discussing censorship. The difficulty is, however, that censorship, both what it is and when it is permissible, can be quite confusing and at times convoluted. In order to avoid any confusion, I will attempt to organize it in a way that makes the most sense, keep in mind however that these categories are not necessarily exclusive and don't interrelate. In fact, they very often mix.

Censorship, unspecific
Just as the general will is declared by the law, the public judgment is declared by censorship. The one who enforces censor does not judge or make people's opinions but simple states them. censorship is needed to preserve and uphold the morality of State, it's mœurs. Good censorship prevents opinions from growing corrupt, which preserves mœurs. The goal is not to denigrate personal liberty, but rather preserve the love of good in society. However, the only time sensors can be set up is it a time of constitutional strength, when laws are strong and being upheld. if actions of censorship are taken at this time all is load nothing that comes out of a time when laws are weak remains or are good.

Public v private censorship
It may be important to delineate uses censorship by that of the government versus that of private entities. Both can you censorship, in the same way, to uphold good opinion, to preserve societies mœurs. But one, that our government, has particular restrictions and duties that the other, private, does not, as sincerely. For the government is formed out of contract and is particularly apt to corruption and abuse of power. This, however, does not excuse the private entity, which is still part of the society and still has a duty to the state.

To reiterate before diving into the street, the point of censorship should be to preserve good morals and values. It may be the explicit job of government to enforce the public opinion, with restrictions so as to avoid tyranny, but it is also the duty of all to preserve morality, as duty to state is second to almost none.

With that being said, we can analyze the street. The conflict in question, Facebook, a private social media corporation, decided to ban some people it deemed "extremist leaders". If these people are in indeed and in fact extremist leaders who are threatening morality and good values, who are threatening stability and peace within the state without due cause and are using Facebook as a platform for said danger, then it is good form for Facebook to ban them. Facebook is doing its duty to the people in preserving mœurs. If Facebook is wrong, and these people are not a danger or threat to what is good and just in the country, then shame on Facebook. But it is reasonable to say that figures such as Alex Jones and the others banned do threaten American society. They often perpetuate mistruth and lies, which is dangerous and corrosive to the general will and good mœurs. Facebook as the platform that allows such behavior has done well to end its assistance in their misdeeds. If it were the government intervening, it may be more complicated, but that bridge could be crossed, if not very carefully (though similar conclusions may still be arrived at).

Voice of the People; Voting: Part 3

(Part 1 of this series established the theoretical foundation and definitions of this discussion. Refer to said post for additional context.)

For this post’s tweet, I’ll be looking at a tweet quoting Donald Trump on his stance against foreign influence in American laws and politics.

President Trump not surrendering American sovereignty to a foreign actor should be applauded and praised. The American government it's subject to The sovereign, ie the American people. Subjugating its authority or laws to any other influence then the members of that state would be unjust and unacceptable. Donald Trump's position here to not allow foreign bureaucrats to influence the Constitution, the founding and fundamental document which binds the American people to its government, is a stand that protects American society.

The caveat here is that the American people have decided to subjugate themselves to some degree of international laws than that should be respected. If it was decided by the American sovereign to cooperate with other sovereigns, then to some degree that should be respected. However, and that being said, I State sovereignty should always be uphill. The people should never be willing to give up all their authority or power to any power that is not themselves. The larger the government we're power gets, the farther it gets away from the individual person expressing their will, the worse the government will be, the less liberty there shall be, the freedom there will be. Indeed, it is part of the job of the government and thereby the president to maintain the integrity of the system. President Trump has done just that in this tweet.

Now, expanding a bit from the tweet, it's all a bit ironic coming from Trump. Considering the meddling by Russians in the 2016 elections and the breaking of laws by his campaign officers, it's hard to say that Trump stands for American democracy in the maintaining of The Sovereign's authority and independence. In fact, considering how much they have broken laws and in challenging norms and legal precedents, the Trump administration is a disgrace to the American people. It is tyrannical and dangerous as it consistently seeks to undermine laws and usurp power from the branches of government.

Voice of the People; Voting: Part 2

Part 1 of this series established the theoretical foundation and definitions of this discussion. Refer to said post for additional context. 

The tweet in question, which was retweeted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, highlights another danger in the American voting system. Voter suppression. The tweet purports that the Shelby County, and other states who have a history of voter suppression, are making voting harder for people of color by moving voting machines at disproportionately higher rates than white, non-colored communities. 

Since the 14th &15th Amendments African American men and men of all other races and creeds were given the rights of full citizenship, including the right to vote. Since the 23rd Amendment women were granted full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. All to say many people have been brought in on American society's social compact, with full rights and privileges. This now makes them contributors to the general will. If American society wants to function fully and delay its inevitable decay, then it must not allow voter suppression, and thing of the such, by anyone for any reason in any place. Voter suppression is denying the obligations and commitments of the contract that holds this society together. Breaking that risks the life of said contract.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and any other politician who claims to uphold the constitution and it's accompanying amendments and the laws of the land, should actively and passionately seek to end all forms and attempts at voter suppression that do not serve any capacity to benefitting the state. Justice, the act of rightly upholding the laws created by the expression of the general will, in all it's forms should be sought by every political that is aware of injustice within the state.

Voice of the People; Voting: Part 1

This series of posts will be looking at some tweets that are relevant to voting. Specifically, voting in the sense of imparting the popular will, which is an estimate or reflection of the general will. To some degree, voting is a kind of public opinion expression. It is critical to the entire political system as it is how, in the United States, laws are made and representatives, who also make and uphold the laws and political system, are elected. This is vital to the sovereign’s social compact formation, negotiation, continuation, and, if failed, termination (end of the state). Voting is how we appoint our legislative branch, which is the heart of the body politic, the sovereign's authority expressed. For these reasons, it is imperative that voting is protected and safeguarded at all times at all costs. On this note, we can view the tweet from Bernie Sanders.

This tweet states that there are those in the government that believe corporation should be considered people. That they should have unlimited influence. That corporations should be allowed to sway the popular opinion with no restraint or at least shift the perception of the general will. This should be terrifying and of great alarm to Americans who believe in America's representative democracy. If we consider the principles above, then it is logical to come to the consensus that its extremely important corporations are not considered people.

This speaks to America's idea of one person one vote. The general will should be represented in the popular will, corporations, however, are an amalgamation of power and resources that can and do often override or outweigh the will and needs of the many for the will and needs of a few.

Bernie Sanders should continue his fight to restore power to the people and legitimizing the government. This includes efforts to reverse Citizens United which set the dangerous precedent of considering corporations as people. Additionally sticker campaign finance laws should be set in place so that these corporations and other individuals cannot unjustly overpower their peers. When it comes to determining the general will, all should be considered equal, from the very highest of society to the very lowest.

Health of a State Continued

As established in the last post, the primary function of any political institution is the preservation and prosperity of its people. in this post, I will discuss the prioritization of public health and safety issues by the US government to further ascertain the current US government's performance.

This tweet, which was retweeted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calls to attention the drug epidemic in America, in contrast to the current attention on the border wall. It argues that the city of Baltimore is not receiving sufficient funding in order to prevent and save people from overdosing on drugs. A further argues that the border wall will do nothing to save lives specifically the lies of people who are overdosing. It has been a justification of the current administration that the border wall is a national emergency in crisis. However many scientists and policymakers are you otherwise. And even if the border what is a crisis, many more still, argue that a wall is not the solution that will fix the problem. 

It is imperative that the US government's primary directive be the health and prosperity of its people. Wasting time on partisan actions for purely political gain do nothing to serve the sovereign. It is its responsibility to take the most credible actions that will fix any potential crisis weather on the border or in the heartland of America. If there is indeed a crisis in the border, it needs to be addressed. If there indeed isn't underfunding which is causing death from overdose, it needs to be addressed.

Health of a State

In the last post, I discussed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tweets defending her religion. These were part of a longer discussion that included her call out of the Trump administration's terrible response to Puerto Rico.

As stated in the tweet above, over 3000 Puerto Ricans, which are American citizens, died. The response from the administration was poor at best. Very little funding and action were taken to support the people of Puerto Rico. Again, Puerto Ricans are US citizens. The United States government is liable for them. It is their duty job in obligation to support protect and provide for them, especially in times of crisis. The United States government failed to do so after hurricane Maria. This is an egregious reflection of the health of the state…

What is the purpose of any political association? The preservation and prosperity of its members. In what is a sure sign of their preservation and prosperity? Their number and their population growth... The government under which the population shrinks is the worst.

Furthermore, the United States government failed to provide support to Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria, is a direct violation of the contract that has with a Puerto Rican people as it promised to provide support, especially in times of natural disaster. The Puerto Rican people were not effectively supported to any reasonable degree, and the US Gov has consistently failed to take action against climate change (which undoubtedly contributed to the deadliness of hurricane Maria).

It would not be too far out of line to say that the Puerto Rican people having an argument to reconsider their ties to the US government, as, arguably, the contract has been violated at the expense of lives.