Zinn believed that the government legislation was unsuccessful; however, the Pageant argued that the legislation, though somewhat ineffective, was a good attempt to curb big businesses’ corruption. According to Zinn, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was intended to supervise the railroads; nonetheless, the act was only used to satisfy the public’s support for government regulation of railroads, but it never actually accomplished anything. It only made railroads more popular because the citizens believed that it was more regulated, when in reality, it was not. Moreover, another government legislation, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, was supposed to protect trade and commerce and make monopolies illegal. However, the Court interpreted the Act in a way that made it harmless, and instead used it go against interstate strikes, since they restricted trade, revealing how unsuccessful the government legislation was at curbing businesses’ corruption.
In his essay "The Myth of the Ant Queen," Steven Johnson seemingly disregards the notion of pacemaker, labeling it as fake and a myth. Johnson debunks the idea of a top down leadership and sheds light on the emergence of the self-organizing systems in our society. Johnson's way of perceiving "pacemaker" seems too narrow, as he mentions that a pacemaker is a central authority figure. Although Johnson's perception is correct to some extent, in a broader sense, not only is it a authoritative figure but also it is also there to ensure a sense of positivity within us, regardless of whether being found at the top or bottom. However, through Oliver Sacks' essay "The Mind's Eye," we are able to complicate the argument presented by Johnson, as Sacks'
Cultural relativism has a variety of definitions, but the main idea is that a universal code of ethics does not exist--it varies culture to culture. Rachel’s examines cultural relativism in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” and argues that there are commonalities of ethics throughout every culture. Rachels sections off his argument to better explain what they believe. In this piece, they argue that cultural relativism is not a proper theory. They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it.
Unlike Marx who views Multiculturalism from the theory heading downwards Dalrymple views multiculturalism from the ground going up. His day to day experiences prove that "not all cultural values are compatible or can be reconciled by the enunciation of platitudes." This means that although multiculturalists support the idea that people should embrace different cultures, there are many challenges that make implementation difficult. Dalrymple argues that the idea that we can co-exist in a society whereby the law doesn't favor one culture at the expense of another one is a lie. In short, the author's main argument is that some cultural values will always be superior to others in every society and the idea that all cultural values can be compatible with every ethnic group makes no
Today, the debate that perplexes society is whether collectivism provides answer for simplicity amongst a civilization. True collectivists believe in altruism, and these altruists believe the only way to bring a society together is by destroying individualism. Democracies believe that individualists remain the only way to keep society 's bonds intact. The stories “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut and Anthem by Ayn Rand draws the line between the so-called perfect utopia versus an imperfect dystopia. One can see there are many similarities between “Harrison Bergeron” and Anthem.
The united states has forever talked about and tried for a equal perfect society but in the story “Harrison Bergeron” it shows us that that is impossible. Nobody is equal. No one is the same we all have different specialties and different weaknesses. So the effort for making a equal society is impractical. It is impossible for an equal society.
What The Spirit Level forgets to take in account are other factors that contributes to the causes explained in each chapter, such as cultural and political, giving minimum information about how equality actually makes society better. It fails in supporting the title: ‘Why Equality is Better for Everyone’. The causes are strongly explained rather than how equality does make society better. The final aspect the authors fail to recognise is equality as a subjective matter. Its definition differs between people.
Sadly, because this nation and this world are corrupt and unethical, the equality we are striving for may never be a reality. Nevertheless, total equality is not necessarily in society’s best interest. When stripped of any and all the things which make us diverse, individuals lose their identity. What we, as the human race, have seemed to have forgotten is our differences are not a disgrace, a curse, or an abomination; instead, our differences are what define us as individuals. They give us our strength and individuality; our differences allow us to accomplish more as a collective than a world full of Da Vincis or Einsteins ever could.
Huxley was concerned over the community’s value on conformity as he believed it didn’t allow free thought, dissent, or uniqueness. He also feared that conditioning would overcome the importance of the individual. Huxley was intelligent and rational, but people debate if his fears came true in accordance to present day times. With free thought comes disagreement, and with disagreement comes change in society. That is why, when Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, he emphasized the terrors of having no dissension in a civilization.
Another theory that would be useful in explaining this particular phenomenon would be postmodernism. With explaining this particular topic, Jean Baudrillard discussed hyper reality. Hyper reality is the representation of reality. Basically, hyper reality is a mixture of what is real and what is not, which means there is no clear way of separating the real from what is not real. Baudrillard argues that hyper reality does not have a positive impact on society.