Empower The Citizens And Nothing Is Impossible | Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Discussion Group

Hello Mack Pack!

I have another discussion group post that I wanted to share with you. Here were my instructions:

The purpose of this discussion is to offer you the opportunity to debate the issue of food justice and food deserts. Food deserts are a significant issue in poorer neighborhoods in the United States. In many of these neighborhoods, the only access to food is through a local convenience store or a fast food restaurant. This severely limits the options for the poor to have access to fresh and wholesome food and has been evidenced as a key reason for the obesity epidemic in the United States. This issue is encompassed in the overarching topic of food justice, which highlights the issue of food deserts as well as public access to genetically modified foods, organic foods, and the issues of equal access for positive food options in light of public health and social inequality. Prepare and post a response to the following prompt:

Read the Hilmers article assigned this week. Assume that your town is a food desert and you would like to do something about it. Prepare an evidenced argument to present to your local town council that outlines an idea to offer healthy food options to your town. Use at least one ethical theory or perspective to support the moral or ethical reasoning for why this program should be implemented.

I always look for a way to avoid government involvement and I wanted to use this as an opportunity to show to my classmates that the government is NOT the first resort for all problems. I wanted to illustrate that empowered citizens are capable of solving community problems for themselves. Let me know what you think? Here is my post:

Thank you for allowing me to present my argument today for what we, as a town, can do to offer healthy food options. As Angela Hilmers illustrated in the "American Journal of Public Health, "People living in low-income neighborhoods were 2.3 times as likely as residents of affluent neighborhoods to have fast-food outlets within 5-10 min walk" (Hilmers, 2012). With this in mind, we stand at the crossroads of an important decision. Do we continue to allow our town to offer only unhealthy choices of food or is there something that we can do about it?

We are currently living in what is known as a "food desert", which means that we are geographically located in such a way that fresh fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods are not only more expensive than more affluent areas, but less available. The result has been a rapid increase of obesity and diabetes in, not just our children, but the entire community. Compared to other areas, where healthy options are more available, our community's overall health is suffering.

But what can we do? Do we create a law outlawing fast food? No! For the answer to less available healthy options of food, is not to eliminate the options that we have. There are many ways to go about increasing the availability to fresh fruits and vegetables that do not involve the government creating new laws outlawing unhealthy food or even providing healthy food choices for the community. 

I ask that the town council find a place for our community to grow our own gardens. Our land is fertile! We have empty lots scattered around town that could be used as a way for us to help ourselves. Instead of relying on others to provide for us, we can provide for ourselves. Being that the property is public land, owned by all, this would be well within the councils power to allocate these areas for this purpose. 

Additionally, I ask that the council please help to provide information to the rest of the community at the local drivers license department on how to grow a garden. By providing this information at the licensing department, we avoid costly marketing, which would of course, be imposed on the taxpayer, but ensures that many people within our community will have access to this information at minimum upon renewal and issue of drivers licenses. This information will put the power back into the hands of the citizens and they can decide what is best for themselves. Lastly, I ask that the council start a community garden donation bank; a place that those of us in the community who wish to donate seeds, fertilizers, soil and gardening equipment to others who cannot afford their to buy their own. I feel all three of these actions are imperative in order for our community to turn around our downward health trends.

I think we can agree that what you put into you body is a deeply personal issue that can only be made by the individual. I feel this common sense approach will allow those of us who wish to have healthier food choices to take control over our lives, while not forcing others to change a way of life they may wish to keep. I urge the council to act upon this request in the most expedient fashion possible. Thank you for your time. 

References:Hilmers, A., Hilmers, D. C., & Dave, J. (2012). Neighborhood disparities in access to healthy foods and their effects on environmental justice. American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), 1644-1654. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300865

The Joys Of Liberal Indoctrination: Part 2 | Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Discussion Group

Hello Mack Pack!

I just finished writing the post required for my college discussion group that asked me to:

From the viewpoint of a social justice activist, present an argument to a Congressional committee as to the ethical and moral reasons for supporting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Through research, anticipate an item of debate that will be offered to you by the panel and use at least one ethical theory or perspective from the text to support your evidence of moral imperative.

As I said before, this was a painful thought. I absolutely did not want to advocate for something that I find abhorrent. I was also disappointed that my school didn't even offer opposition to ObamaCare a chance to be heard. Nonetheless, I persevered! I hope you can hear the dissent in my voice while reading this essay.

----

A "social justice activist" would be best off using the ethical theory of Utilitarianism to argue their case for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare. A Utilitarian would be able to justify using government to coerce American citizens to buy a heath insurance plan, based on arguments for the greater good. A Utilitarian could make the argument for all Americans having an insurance plan for healthcare, because overall they would be healthier, which would mean utility or happiness would be maximized. The Utilitarian could argue that there is no greater moral imperative than to give people healthier and longer lives. This argument could form the basis for all Utilitarian or "social justice" actions for the "greater good" of society.

The ACA forces health insurance companies to insure people for their preexisting conditions, which is the antithesis of how insurance works, but from a "social justice activist" or a Utilitarian perspective, it is necessary to ensure all Americans, healthy or sick, can get insurance. The ACA has an individual mandate that requires all Americans to buy a health insurance plan in order to be in compliance with the ACA or risk being charged a tax/penalty, which is meant to prevent people from only buying health insurance after they become sick. It also has an employer mandate that requires employers to provide health insurance to their employees who work over 30 hours a week, which is meant to prevent employers from just dropping their employee's health insurance and sending them to the healthcare exchanges.

Since the Utilitarian does not look at the morality of the act itself, but rather the consequences or outcome of actions in order to determine if the act was moral, they would not see an ethical dilemma in implementing the Affordable Care Act. They would, in fact, feel that the utility created from a healthier American population would be more than the sacrifices, suffering or harm required to implement this program. With this is mind, the argument for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act could be supported by Utilitarianism.

In closing, I would like to point out that the ethical theory of Utilitarianism could also be used to oppose the ACA, because it creates more utility for the sick than it does for the healthy. This is because the healthy citizens (the majority) subsidize the expenses for the sick (the minority) who gets the bulk of utility created from this program. Based on this argument the Utilitarian would see more harm created than utility, not to mention the economic factors of employers only hiring part time workers to prevent having to pay for full time employee health insurance. If the "social justice activist" ignored the data that did not help their cause (which they do) then they could overcome these inconvenient truths.

References:
Emory University. (2011, May 2). Healthcare reform: Overview of access to care and regulatory process [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0TBoKol6Q&feature=youtu.be

The Joys Of Liberal Indoctrination

Hello Mack Pack! This week I am involved in a new discussion group in college and I have to say I am more than disappointed. I am required to write a post from the perspective of a "social justice activist", which of course, irks me more than just a little. Here are my instructions:

-----

This discussion presents the opportunity for you to address the inequality of access to healthcare in the United States using moral and ethical reasoning. There is overwhelming evidence that social inequalities affect health outcomes. Many argue that lack of health care access related to poverty is a human rights concern in the United States and that should be subject to public and social justice inquiry. As such, the Affordable Care Act was implemented to promote health equity. Prepare and post a response to the following prompt:

From the viewpoint of a social justice activist, present an argument to a Congressional committee as to the ethical and moral reasons for supporting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Through research, anticipate an item of debate that will be offered to you by the panel and use at least one ethical theory or perspective from the text to support your evidence of moral imperative.

-----

This is just another example of how college is, more or less, a liberal indoctrination center. They don't even want to hear the opposition to Obamacare. They ONLY are asking for opinions on why social inequalities prevent people from accessing healthcare and, in turn, why a moral person should support universal healthcare.

This is despicable!

Of course I know the argument that the Left would use, but I fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint and now I am forced to comply or face the repercussions of not completely the post according to the instructions. Saul Alinsky would be proud of them.

I have yet to decide how I will approach this, but needless to say I am torn. I'll post what I come up with when I'm finished.

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!

MoveOn.org Propaganda

I made the mistake a little bit ago of signing a petition on MoveOn.org to repeal I-594. It was taken down before anything could happen with it, but that was most likely because MoveOn is a Leftist organization that apparently has ties to I-594 in the first place.

Anywho, I'm now on their mailing list and I thought I would share with you all some of the Progressive Propaganda they are spouting out to their useful idiots.

------------

Dear MoveOn member,

In just hours, the Senate will vote on whether to push forward the Keystone XL pipeline—a disastrous and dangerous proposal that would, in the words of leading climate scientists and environmentalists, be "game over for the planet."¹

Either the Senate will send President Obama a Keystone pipeline bill TODAY—and we will need him to promise to veto it; or the Democrats will defeat the measure by one vote, which means that in just seven weeks, a new Republican majority will send him the pipeline—and we'll need him to veto it in January.

Either way, President Obama is our last line of defense. So we're joining with allies to mobilize grassroots support demanding that the president commit to vetoing the pipeline bill—today or early next year.

Will you chip in $3 to help stop the Keystone XL pipeline—and to push Democrats and President Obama to be bold in the fights ahead?

Yes, I'll chip in.

We've already begun fighting back. We're helping organize rallies outside wavering senators' offices. We're mobilizing calls to senators. And we're providing organizers on the ground with access to MoveOn tools and connections to MoveOn members.  

We're mobilizing because this is a hugely important fight on its own—and it'll set the stage for the next two years. 

When the Republicans take control of the Senate in January, we can expect a rush of right-wing, anti-climate, anti-science bills: a rollback of President Obama's efforts to regulate carbon, bills to undermine his climate change agreement with China, and bills that give rein to the extractive practices of frackers, Big Coal, and Big Oil.

Following the midterms, some Democrats are feeling nervous—and they are hearing from the usual chorus of consultants and pundits who advise them that the way to win is to be more like Republicans. This is the kind of horrible advice that lost many Democrats their election—yet conservative Democrats continue to listen! And they won't stop unless they feel sustained, passionate pressure from their grassroots base—the folks who they need to inspire in order to win future elections. 

Will you chip in $3 to help us make sure Democrats stop the Keystone XL pipeline, stop listening to big oil and bad consultants, and fight for progressive values?

Yes, I'll chip in to help stop Keystone XL and fight for progressive values.

This fight isn't just a preamble to other environmental attacks—it foreshadows the large range of issues that the right-wing Republican leadership intends to tackle. We'll face similar assaults on health care, women's rights, equality, decent wages, Social Security, and civil rights.

In fight after fight, Republicans will push forward a radical agenda and then attempt to pick off a few Democrats to give them the supermajority they need, as well as the veneer of "bipartisanship."

The only way to preserve affordable health care, see humane reforms in our immigration policy, ensure women make their own decisions about their health, and fully invest in Social Security is to make sure Democrats stand strong. And when the Democrats in the Senate falter, it will come to President Obama to be bold in the use of his veto pen.

Following the midterms, many Democrats are nervous. It's our job to make them realize that the path to a stronger America, and to future electoral victories, isn't through caving in—it's through standing up for our shared values.

Whatever happens in the Senate today, we know one thing for sure: We're going to need to be stubborn, strong, and stiff-spined for the next two years.

Can you chip in $3 to help us defeat the Keystone pipeline—and prepare for the fights ahead?

Yes, I'll chip in.

Thanks for all you do.

–Anna, Jo, Brian, Corinne, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Why I Got Arrested Over the Keystone XL Pipeline," Mother Jones, August 25, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=301099&id=104811-29061013-zf_wOex&t=1

An Open Letter To Young Workers In America On Ageism | Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Discussion Group

Dear Young Workers In America,

I feel it necessary to speak to you today, in order to plead the case against ageism, that is to say, prejudice based on one's age. Many economists believe it is a fallacy that having older employees in the workforce causes younger workers to have less jobs, because they do not believe that an economy has a fixed number of jobs. By this economical theory, the more people working in the economy, the more jobs that will be created. This is called the "Lump of Labor Fallacy" and whether you believe that or not, please allow me to appeal to you on a level of self interest using the theory of ethical egoism.

According to ethical egoism, one should do what is in one's self interest. What can be more beneficial to oneself than having older, more experienced co-workers to learn from and draw experience from? I would argue that these older sages are a boon to one's employment experience and future job marketability. These older workers can become role models and mentors, providing first hand knowledge and experience that a younger worker might have had to spend years in the workforce to obtain.

Lastly, and I feel most importantly, we will all grow old. It is a fact of life. As Todd Nelson said in "Ageism : Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons":

"One of the unique features of ageism is that age, unlike race and sex, represents a category in which most people from the in-group (the young) will eventually (if they are fortunate) become a member of the out-group (older persons). Thus, it seems strange that young people would be prejudiced toward a group to which they will eventually belong." (Nelson, 2004)

In closing, the prejudice allowed to be inflicted upon older generations will one day be targeted at you. It is in your self interest to eliminate ageism once and for all. Become its greatest opposition. The job you save may be your own!

Respectfully,

Mack Worley III

----

References:

Nelson, Todd, ed. Ageism : Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2004. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 13 November 2014.

Drug Testing In The Military | Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Discussion Groups

Using your own work experience, imagine a circumstance in which your supervisor wanted to monitor your behavior off the job. Describe the circumstances, including how your conduct is being monitored and why your conduct is being monitored.

There is no need to imagine a scenario. I am all too familiar with my employer and supervisors monitoring my behavior off duty. I am former military and during my time in the service I was required to submit to random urinalysis screenings, otherwise known as drug testing. The purpose for this was to catch anyone who was violating the Uniformed Code of Military Justice by using drugs. I had to go to many of these drug screenings during my enlistment. They would call you and tell you to report to the medical clinic immediately. You had no choice. You could not reschedule.

Would you consider your example to involve a minor, moderate, or severe invasion on an individual’s privacy? Explain your reasoning. Share your un-emotional, well-defined, evidence-based response to your boss to support your viewpoint.

I would consider this not only a severe invasion of an individuals privacy, but a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (US Constitution, 1789)

I am not talking about a private company doing drug testing, for that would be a different matter entirely. I am talking about the federal government forcing its employees to submit to a search. That is what drug testing is... a search. The Fourth Amendment is meant to prevent the government from conducting searches or seizures without warrants; however, in this case, they are clearly violating the Constitution. The searches they are conducting are without warrants, probable cause or reasonable suspicion that their employees are even involved in drug use.

What issues led to the employer’s monitoring of the employee? Use one ethical theory or perspective to help support the employer’s viewpoint, and use a scholarly source as your evidence.

There have obviously been people who have used drugs while in the military. I am sure the military used a Utilitarian mindset when deciding to start doing random drug testing. They probably figured that it was for the greater good that they discover who is violating the UCMJ, in order to make corrective actions. They likely figured, as a Utilitarian would, that the image of a strong and disciplined military is more important than the rights of individuals. "Large-scale drug testing of federal workers only began with President Reagan’s 1986 call for a “drug-free federal workplace” (Executive Order 12564). The order required workers in “sensitive positions,” approximately 17 percent of the federal workforce, to submit to drug screens" (Brunet, 2004).

What about the employee’s viewpoint? Use one ethical theory or perspective to support the employee’s right to privacy outside of work, and use a scholarly source as your evidence.

One can use the ethical theory of ethical egoism when trying to find an employee's viewpoint. It is not within the employee's best interest to allow the government to inspect their bodily fluids upon demand. Even if they have nothing to hide, the government gets its rights from the people it governs. A government that governs by force or coercion, i.e. without the consent of the people, is practicing tyranny. It is in the employees best interest to ensure that the government respects his/her rights of privacy and does not violate the Constitution. There is no benefit for an individual, whatsoever, in allowing the government to search their bodily fluids. With that in mind, the ethical egoism theory would be adamantly opposed to this practice. The ethical egoist would think it is "unfair to require millions of workers who were not even suspected of using drugs to submit to a “humiliating and intrusive” drug test" (Brunet, 2004). 

-----

Reference:

US Constitution, 1789, Retrived at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Brunet, James R.. Drug Testing in Law Enforcement Agencies : Social Control in the Public Sector. New York, NY, USA: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2004.  Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary.

More Blogging To Come!

Hello Mack Pack,

I just wanted to let you know that I will be doing more blogging in the near future. I will use this blog as a collection for my rants, raves, thoughts & discussions.

Additionally, as some of you may know, I am working on my Bachelor's Degree in Political Science. Some of the topics I've been covering I find extremely interesting and perhaps you will too! I will post my college discussion group posts and some homework assignments that I think are interesting here.

So feel free to drop in and see what I got going on. I would love to hear from you too! So comment below and let me know what you think!

In Liberty,

Mack Worley III
American

NO MORE COMPROMISING!

I want to share with you all a conversation I had on Facebook with a so called, "Pro-Second Amendment" individual.

He was commenting on this article: THOUSANDS of Washingtonians Pledge Civil Disobedience to New Anti-Gun Laws

He said: "I'm extremely pro-Second-Amendment. That being said, a background check - to me, at least - is common sense. Your local gun shops all do it, even vendors at gun shows. So why not between two persons? Background checks do nothing to record a firearm. It simply checks whether the individual has any outstanding warrants for arrest, or prior felonious convictions. This is what annoys me with my fellow 2nd-amendment-ers. Don't be so polarizing that you jeopardize a movement, when a law is passed that maay very well help it. e.g, closing the open door to violent criminals purchasing weapons."

So I responded with:

"Please let me tell you, firstly, why more background checks will not help prevent crime and secondly, why this (I-594) is NOT about background checks.

The authors of I-594 (and most anti-gun legislation for that matter) have already admitted that this will do little, if anything, to prevent crime. It will have to be coupled with draconian gun laws, which will severely limit the average citizen from owning and bearing a firearm.

By definition criminals break laws. Why would a criminal, who stole a gun, in order to sell it to another criminal, who will use it in a crime, submit to a background check? The answer: they wouldn't... AND DON'T.

The ONLY people these new background checks will affect are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. These are the people you didn't have to worry about in the first place. It adds more red tape in order to simply exercise a Constitutionally protected right. Forcing some citizens to just give up their pursuit of owning a firearm, because of the hassle. Causing other firearm owners, either inadvertently or intentionally, to become felons overnight with the stroke of a pen. Not because they harmed anyone, but because they did exactly what they have been doing for their ENTIRE LIVES. They were not a threat to ANYONE.

In order for the government to know if a firearm has been transferred, there WILL BE a mandatory GUN REGISTRATION. It is the only way they can properly enforce the law. As we all know, thanks to the prism of history, GUN REGISTRATION IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CONFISCATION. Confiscation might seem far away or even impossible, but it is only because patriots have fought this battle to stave it off this long.

Additionally, our National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is already severely overwhelmed. This is the check that is required to purchase a firearm through a licensed dealer. This over burdened program CANNOT withstand the additional background checks caused from person to person transfers and again, criminals will NOT submit to a background check, so the only people who would be bogging down the system are law abiding citizens.

It will take weeks, if not months, if not years for a background check to be approved by NICS. If the government can prevent people from being able to get their background checks, they have effectively banned firearms.

Lastly, I just want to touch on a point that you made: "It simply checks whether the individual has any outstanding warrants for arrest, or prior felonious convictions".

Upon the founding our nation, we did not have a law banning felons from possessing a firearm. That was created in the Progressive Era in the early 1900's. The real problem here is NOT felons owning firearms -- It's dangerous, violent felons being released onto our streets, while non-violent felons are filling our prisons. If a felon is a threat to society, they should not be released... PERIOD! If they are released, they should be given full rights as a citizen, since they have "paid their debt to society".

I am not trying to pick a fight with you, Travis, but people who call themselves Pro-Second Amendment and then call for restrictions to the right to keep and bear arms are part of the problem, not gun owners against draconian gun laws. I understand your logic perfectly and I respectfully disagree with you.

I will say that you might want to think long and hard about your title as "Pro-Second Amendment". It is hard for a person to be "pro" something, when they are calling for the exact opposite of what they supposedly support... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Gun owners have compromised and compromised our rights away... and what do we have? Background checks, permits to conceal, permits to own, gun free zones, gun rights lost for non-violent crimes, trigger lock requirements, bureaucracy and we get vilified in the media.

What have the gun grabbing extremists compromised on? They have let us keep what guns we have... for now. Compromising gets us NO WHERE with these people.

I say, NO MORE COMPROMISING!"

So Mack Pack, what are your thoughts?