Saturday, May 14, 2016

Interest Groups


Thus, in a very small group, where each member gets a substantial proportion of the total gain simply because there are few others in the group, a collective good can often be provided by the voluntary, self-interested action of the members of the group. In smaller groups marked by considerable degrees of inequality that is, in groups of members of unequal "size" or extent of interest in the collective good-there is the greatest likelihood that a collective good will be provided; for the greater the interest in the collective good of any single member, the greater the likelihood that that member will get such a significant proportion of the total benefit from the collective good that he will gain from seeing that the good is provided, even if he has to pay all of the cost himself.

 https://bbhosted.cuny.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-24226307-dt-content-rid-116963690_1/courses/LEH01_POL_166_H01_1162_1/Olson.pdf

          In Olson's Theory of Collective Actions, he argues that people's efforts to pursue political goals there is a way to separate the majority interest from the minority interest.  In this particular passage, makes great emphasis on the idea that the minority interest can be counted for delivery of a common good without being compelled.  It is so to the point where and a single member can put fourth the cost for the collective good.  This is quite interest because it can easily touch on the "free rider problem", which as Olson described pertains to someone who benefits from something but contributes nothing to maintain the pursuit of the goal.  If only one member can care for the cost, where does it really leave the rest of the members? His 4 solutions however seems to be a great balance and solution to this problem.




Saturday, May 7, 2016

Schenck v. United States

"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act"
"Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

          Unanimously, the court decided that Mr. Schenck was not protected by the 1st Amendment of free speech because it violated the Espionage Act.  This is actually quite interesting for for i believe this is a country heavily founded on a Constitution which specially Supreme Court Marshalls hold  highly when making their decisions.  However, i understand how during a time of war in the early 1900's it opinions may change. The US during WWI was a very different place from what it is today, freedom of speech has taken a whole new life of it own.  Nowadays, there certainly is a greater tolerance even during war times.  But back to Mr. Schenck's time, i can certainly understand where both parties stand, one could argue he was in his every right to speak out against the draft and show how unfair he thought it was; however, on the court's side, take the actions of sending those circulars to the draftees could have affected the overall attendance of the military which would ofcourse put the country at risk.  This case is a classic example of how we should not take things so literal.