Why is people's movement restricted?

I have watched a lot of news about rallying groups of people, may it for additional salary or to expose authority of their wrong doings. These rallies, in my opinion, is to get the sympathy of the masses and the support of the government for their causes. Of course, no rally can be without disadvantage. The place where the meeting was held will be left dirty and littered, and the area of demonstration needed to be closed off which will cause traffic throughout the day. Even if the cause of the demonstration is for the better, there are certain unpleasant things that will eventually happen, may it be expected or not. So the government issues permits and other paperwork for the organizations to be able to conduct such activities. This is a form of restriction to the movement of the people. I think that the government must execute restrictions to maintain peace and order in the society. If there are no laws to restrict people's actions, there would be chaos because people will want to do whatever they can think of. Certain limitations may be biased to the government but, generally, it is for the good of the people.

Why study globalization and development?

Globalization is one of the modern words I have heard of when I was still in grade school and I think it was around that time that the concept was starting to spread and be tried. There was this time that I was asked to write an essay about globalization and I barely have an idea about it. Because of that, I think that globalization and development should be taught in schools. There should be no place for ignorance specially in our world now. We need to know about what is happening not only in the scope of environment we see but also in the other parts of the country and of the world. It is somehow our responsibility to be aware. It is our obligation as a citizen of some place to be able to contribute to a macro level--a bigger level--in which a lot more people can benefit.

Can we move beyond conflict?

Conflict has been a part of history since the start of civilization. I learned in my history class that some governments of civilizations even gone to the extent of being broken or destroyed because of conflict. One example of this historical generalization is that of the Chinese dynasties wherein every dynasty, regardless of how long they have been the most powerful in the civilization, fell because of conflict in the government officials itself or because of barbarian invasions. These conflicts made up the history of every group of people. These may have been learning experiences or traumatic moments of their history, but nevertheless, it is part of history that we cannot control nor erase. In our modern times, conflict is already part of who we are. It may have helped or traumatized us. It is not easy to restore peace and stability after such experiences. Each conflict is situated uniquely when it comes to political, economic, social and cultural aspects. So there is no single theory that can straddle on all conflicts. I read about the example of North and South Korea. Their different ideologists helped widen their gap. The communist North and the capitalist South had long been nourishing a deeply entrenched hatred and tension and this is seen as something inevitable considering the situation they are in.

But what can we do to move on from this conflict? First approach is the confrontational approach. This is like a harder, fimer way of looking into how to solve conflict. It will use military power as an instrument of deterrence and pressure and economic sanctions. This had been not effective in the situation of North Korea because it does not take into account the interactive nature of conflicts. So instead of healing from within, it just tends to heighten the conflict. The second approach is the engagement approach. It opens the country to political, economic and cultural interactions that may help it to be more open to the ideas that will be beneficial for its people and will promote peace and order globally. With the prevention of military escalation, stability will be restored.

I think that the engagement approach will be more effective in the situation of North Korea because violence and the manifestation of power through the military is not always the way to restore peace and order. Maybe if the UN tried this approach, North Korea will soften its stand on its accumulation of nuclear power and may prevent any future wars.

What can we do to stop people from harming others?

When I see people from all parts of the world being involved in international conflicts, I wonder what I could do to help. What could the people from other countries do to make themselves be felt by unfortunate people from countries with violence? What do the international organizations do? Do they have the responsibility to do something to save the world?

There are two basic ways to stop people harming others. One is the political way where force is needed to do what is needed to accomplish their goal of promoting peace. Even though sometimes I think that they exert harm to stop people from harming others, I still think it’s needed. It may be ironic. But there are things that need to be turned around to get what is for the better of the world. Another is the legal way wherein laws were made for the welfare of people. I think this is an indirect way of making people do what is wanted and needed in the world.

Human intervention is often needed when two countries are in conflict with one another. This is because they only have their own interests in mind and it is hard for them to consider other countries’ needs as well. So with a mediator that is of the third party may help the conflicting countries resolve their issues with one another. But I can see that when these situations arise, the third party seems to be the mediator because of certain hidden agendas. It makes me wonder if any country will really help another if there are no benefits for them.

I think the international organization for maintaining peace and order should be able to prevent anything wrong from happening rather than waiting for something to happen then resolving it.

Good and evil

The nature of the human person is good. It may seem idealistic but I believe that the human person is born good. It is natural for us to do pleasant things to others. We are born compassionate to our fellow human beings. We know that we need to survive but sometimes, survival is second to being compassionate. People think that they can do good because they are naturally good. It would be inborne in them to do good things because they are made to be so. Desire for things in this world that is not originally ours is the main root of our evilness. With that desire, we feel urges to do whatever is needed to get what we want even if it means to hurt and step on other people along the way.

Conflict is justifiable when it is to fight for the betterment of the general good. World leaders cannot completely end global conflict and violence because I think it is impossible. As long as people are capable of bad thoughts and greediness, there will be a beginning for conflict and violence. Peace can be promoted through being "human" in the natural sense of the world. Since I believe that humans are born good, I know that when we go back to who we originally were, goodness and peace can be attained.

Why do politics turn to violence?

This question is very much suited to what we have this year in the Philippines. The upcoming elections had been very controversial because of the celebrities running for certain positions and other issues being brought up in connection to them. This got me thinking how dirty and disturbing politics is. Everyone seems to be wanting something so badly that they are willing to do anything and everything just to get it.

What do they do when they want something? They turn to violence. There have been reports on extra judicial killings and other government related killings in the past years. These had been thought of as to benefit some people. Some think that it would be for the government, to avoid other controversies that may affect its power. Some think it is for some important person only that is very much influential that his favor is important to some powerful group of individuals. Sometimes diplomacy is not an option when it comes to complicated things. And it looks like some politicians see violence as something helpful.

It is hard to stop all these killings. It straddles more on the morality of the people. I think the Church has to emphasize morality more especially now.

The Internet

The internet is now a very important part of our daily lives. Some people can even say that they cannot live without having to go online every single day. As a student of a university that encourages globalization, it is essential for me to be in touch of the international affairs. The easiest way to get the access to those things is through the internet. It is very much user friendly. A user can readily say that information is on his or her fingertips, just a click or touch away. I can say that the internet is very useful to me. It is like having a portable library that I can open and browse over anytime and anywhere I want. It also gives me a chance to be in touch with people that I know and to maintain close social relationships with people I don't often get to see.

With the positive effects I mentioned above, I cannot deny that there are also disadvantages in the wide use of the internet. It discourages people to effort or work for information. This leads to data which are sometimes unreliable or invalid. The internet also becomes an avenue for unpleasant things such as exploitation of women and children in porn sites. Another disadvantage is the digital divide. Not everyone can afford a laptop or a cellphone which has the latest applications at hand. This increases the gap between the poor and the rich. Just like in the previous topics I have made blogs on, various things that a certain group of people have and enjoy everyday becomes a source for a kind of divide. This is, in my opinion, inevitable but it can be lessened by education. People who cannot afford technology can still study how to use it. They may not always have it but when they have the chance, they will know what to do.

Internet is a fruit of globalization. They are somehow similar in a way that I can compare it to fire. It can cook good food yet it can burn down houses. Meaning, both has good and bad sides to it. People just need to be more critical with what they do with it.