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.

How can we end poverty?

Poverty is something we see every day. I think we see it so much that there was a time that we already became used to it. But now, there are a lot of movements and organizations being made up to eliminate poverty. Policies on debt forgiveness, fair trade and development aid are being made to help the poor. This got me thinking, can we really do that? Is it a systematic process? Why don’t we just try to reduce it for the meantime then work slowly towards eliminating it?

I read that the neoliberal solution suggests leaving the problem of poverty to the functioning of the market by removing obstacles for its smooth operation. Since the market is used to serve people for their own self-interest, people could go out and do things and mutually profit from those. I agree with this suggestion but it can be a bit difficult. People have the tendency to be selfish and greedy that the solution cannot be completely pushed through. There will always be someone who gets the upper hand in things and benefits more from the market exchange. But this looks possible and is worth a try.

Why are some people better off than others?

As I watch the news every single day, I can see reports about extremely rich people getting robbed or having a loss of shares then extremely less fortunate people struggling to have food on their plates for the day. There are two extremes in such a fast movement of the news. I saw such a great unequality being emphasized between the rich and the poor. This made me think that in this time, in our modern world now, the concept of unequality seems to take over. I am talking about an internal unequality.

Countries are slowly coping with the modernization and globalization of the world through global capitalism and reducing the gap between the most powerful countries and the developing ones. However, when we look inside these countries, we can see the huge difference of its individuals. The income is being concentrated on the top percentage of the people of the countries which leave the last, lowest percentage still poor and unfortunate.

If we come to think of it, an increasing economy is equal to decreasing equality between its people. I think the policies being made in the country affects on why some people are better off than others. As capitalism dominates, the unequality gap of the individuals increases

People from a certain country seem to be “luckier” when they migrate to another country. They earn a lot more than they can if they stayed behind. This just shows that people are in search of better lives for themselves in other places than being stuck somewhere where they cannot rise up due to the huge unequality.

How is the world organized economically?

People have already been doing the mechanics of economics since about several thousand years ago. It all started from bartering or trading necessities to the development of coins then bills to the booming business that we see everywhere.

With the birth of industrialization, economics were given more importance due to its help in raising up countries in relation to their status in the world. The most obvious of social problems were seen in the factories between males and females. In the flexibilization of the factories, the females’ social stigma of being the weaker sex was given much emphasis because the easier, less important tasks were assigned to them. This shows that the males were still considered as the stronger, more capable breadwinner compared to the opposite sex. Hence, they receive more jobs and less of a hard time in getting them. This gives more of the control and power to the management and none to the workers. The latter cannot choose the jobs they want or they deserved because of some requirements or criteria that may or may not be fair for them at all.

The concept of flexibilization highlights the difference between the minority and majority of the people. The minority being the rich and powerful and the majority being the poor and the workers. Maybe that is how the world is being organized economically. I can see it as a huge business play of the powerful and the powerless, the owners and the mere contractual employees. It is difficult to be living a world that gives one no choice. But there are entrepreneurial activities that can be done in a less regulated environment. These are possibilities for income generation and thus gives hope to the “powerless” group of people.

What is the future of nation-states in globalization?

What will happen to the nation-states in globalization? I think the answer can be found in the term “globalization” itself. The nation-states of the world will be one. All will unite as one nation-state. Hence the root word “global”. I do not mean one in the sense that each nation’s uniqueness will be lost. I mean it as a way of unity amongst all nations. Everyone will accept that they will have to agree to disagree at certain times about certain things. But in the end, the world’s welfare must be acted upon with care by every country that chooses to decide.

People feel patronage and loyalty towards their homelands. Immigrants from different parts of the world still have a soft side for the countries they left behind no matter how long they have departed from it already. I think this certain feeling maintains what we all call nation-states. Each nation has its own government, a set of officials and codes of rules to be followed by the society it leads. This all contributes to their individuality. An individuality that globalization should not destroy despite the unity we aim for the countries of the world.

Do colonialism and slavery belong to the past?

History had been really helpful in making me realize that all great events or trends are just repetitive. Almost everything that is happening now had already been experienced in the past. This makes me wonder: Why are human beings repeating the mistakes they had already committed? What satisfaction do they derive from being wrong all over again?

I think that as the earth gets older, we must be better. Better in a sense that life will be improved and uniquely advance, and that the society we all belong in will be a version that nobody will feel isolated or stepped on anymore. But that is not the case today, is it? The colonialism and slavery that the ancient people experienced can still be experienced today. This kind of treatment has different setting, different kind of people but with the same feelings of abandonment and isolation from the one in the past. This is sad. This is very disappointing that us, modern humans, still do the most primal things.

I can see that this colonialism and slavery rooted from the social classes that we categorize people in. before, people were divided as they are in society. Now, I can see that people are divided according to the country they live in. Slavery happens because certain powerful people look at others in a low way that they can see the latter as machines or slaves that will do what they want for them. I think it is also a statement of needs. Poor groups of people are in more need of necessities so they allow themselves to be colonized or enslaved by others.

We are enslaved because we allow to be enslaved. If we work harder and prove to be really independent, other countries won’t look down at us. We should prove our worth not only for the sake of self pride but to build our own place in a world that is now a cage of tigers in competition.

Obedience to Government

As I have read, a government is a body with the power to make and/or enforce laws for a country, land area, people, or organization. It is a group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. It is viewed as the ruling political power. We obey the government because we have a responsibility as a citizen of our country. That responsibility is to be one with our fellow countrymen. I think the government is an organizational tool to keep a country going. Without it, we will have a difficult time in developing because nothing ties up everyone.

I think for a person to obey a certain authority, he or she must learn to trust it. The former should have the assurance that the obedience will then be put into good use by the authority trusted to receive it. People nowadays may hesitate to obey the government maybe because it sees that the government is not worth its trust. The investment of willpower in obedience to the government is a risk of some kind. It may not be a big of a deal to most of us but when put together, everyone’s obedience is worth a lot. It is possible to change something huge and eventful.

My professor asked us, “Are we obliged to obey a bad government?” It intrigued me on how to answer this question without being confusing. I think the suitable answer, no matter how corny it may sound, is it depends. What do we mean by the term “bad”? “Bad” in the sense that the government is cruel, inconsiderate and unfair? Or “bad” in the sense that the government has no brainpower to analyze where it’s at and how to deal with the changes it encounter. If the question was asked with the term pertaining to the first possibility, I think it’s a moral decision. If asked in the second possibility, I think I will not obey a government that cannot move on its own. I want a government that knows what it is doing. I deserve it because I pay my taxes, I believe that I am doing what I can to be a productive individual that will be beneficial to the country.

Why is the world divided territorially?

After being faced with this question, I remember how the world map looks like. With all its curved and straight lines, boundaries between nations and countries are clearly seen. Every space owned is given a designated color to not confuse it with anything else. I have to say that the question above is valid. I began thinking what if the world is not territorially divided at all? What will happen? Will it lead to a better, more united earth or a more chaotic one?

We watched a video of the human evolution in our history class. It shows how early humans roam from one place to another to grow food. They treat the whole planet as their own. Wherever they go, they put their mark and for the meantime, they own the place. After being done with the place, they leave and go to another virgin land. I began to wonder: What if groups of modern people like us still live the same way?

I personally think that it might be a chaotic situation if ever we still live a roving life, without a sense of permanence or consistency. Imagine life just going around the country to have a source of food or business. Imagine fighting off other groups of people to get a piece of land for yourself. It can get a little tiring after some time. Territories are marked to give us some kind of organization. Countries had leaders and their own set of laws to have freedom for the people living there. Maybe it’s another characteristic of civilization. Maybe it is a part of development that we have to slice up the remains of the earth for us to all share. It gives us peace and order.

How do we find out what's going on in the world?

Media is one of the most important aspects of our society. With the invention of radio, television and internet, media was born. It is very much essential for everyone since they are the ones that deliver information and news to people of the world everyday. This privilege gives them some kind of power to manipulate and somehow, greatly influence how people think about certain events. With this thought, I began to wonder “Can news really be fair and unbiased? Does it really relay information without adding malice or helping itself on some hidden agenda?”

In my opinion, media can never be completely fair in reporting a certain event. It will always advocate something for its own gain. I am not saying that people should not believe the news they hear anymore. I’m just trying to remind people that media reporters are also humans. Humans are always given the chance to have their own views and interpretations on events, people and places. Media reporters work in gathering data, articulating, and then delivering news for its audience. And us, in turn, we should be smart enough to not depend on the media on how to view things. We should use the brains we were blessed with to be critical and careful of what we read because no matter how insignificant we think our opinions are, it will still be listened to. It will still matter. We should not be passive. We should be aware of what’s happening around us so we can brace ourselves when the time comes that we have to prepare for something.

Is globalization good or bad?

I shall answer this question in an unoriginal way. It is either good or bad, depending on how it is used. If you come to think of it, most things and events have their own light and dark sides that we can take into consideration and emphasize if we choose to take a side. As to globalization, it is good if used for the betterment of the world. Betterment in the sense that the whole world will improve and rise in the same rate, no one nation will lead and conquer all the small others. Globalization can be seen as bad if used to discriminate developing countries and to gather power to monopolize the world.

A history of globalization is very similar to the history of the world but it has a very noticeable difference. The former happened exponentially faster than the latter. This can be overwhelming since there are adjustments to be done and preparations to take care of. It may have started off as an American phenomenon but now that everyone in the world and already know of it, it may not be long before the whole planet is under this phenomenon already. Some countries needed work but through time, and with help from the rest of the world, everyone will be “globalized”. When? We can not easily know but we can predict and look forward to it.

In my opinion, globalization is a new way of looking at the world. It may seem as if it is just another name for imperialism, colonialism, modernism or capitalism. It may be. But will we let it be? That is the question. Things happen if we let it happen. Globalization is the time to be smarter and more aware of the world so that we will not be taken advantage of.

How do religious beliefs affect politics?

Religion is one of the aspects of life that we were born with. It may not be necessarily the one we choose but it can already be considered as a kind of tradition passed down from one generation. Let’s say, the Philippines. It is very characteristic of our country to be a devout Catholic that people who separate from the faith were looked upon with awkwardness. The Church has very wide and powerful branches that its influence can pass through everything in the country. May it be legislature, family planning or prison laws, the Church have something to say about it. And with the people being very devout about their religion, they listen to whatever the Church is saying and they act upon it on a no gray area mentality. I am not saying it is wrong or bad to make and approve certain government decisions that way. I think it just affects how our country develops.

Religious beliefs affect politics in legislature. Law writing is crucial to a country’s future and development. Whatever laws the government officials approve of, it will dictate how things in the country will be processed. There’s a certain trace of politics in legislature in a way that lawmakers will study and pass laws which will be beneficial to them in a future campaign or a potential business deal. Religious beliefs enter the scene in this case. Politicians take into too much consideration and emphasis the certain religious beliefs in the laws they make in able to get the people’s attention on how religious or God-fearing they are. Laws are made to please people through the religion they believe in. Maybe it’s one of the reasons why our country is in such a slow progress. There’s too much B.S. going around.

Let’s say, the implementation of family planning. A lot of politicians are against this bill since they say it does not deliver the religious beliefs they uphold. The importance of life and the possibility of living beings that people stop and hinder when they do family planning are some points. I am personally in support of family planning. I think that it’s better to stop the “possibility” of a child to be conceived as soon as possible. I am not talking of abortion but of the use of contraceptives. I admire the politicians who stand up and support this bill because if you come to think of it, it is one good way to solve population growth. Since poverty is a result of overpopulation, having less mouths to feed might be helpful in decreasing poverty as well. But this is not about whether one law is good or not. It is about considering one law as right just because some religious belief tells it to be so. I think we people should be smarter than that. We should not just absorb whatever is being held out to us by religion. We are not sponges for information. We are given brains to help us think over what may be right to us.

Religion affects politics in a way that politicians become slaves of religious beliefs that they use it not for the sake of faith but for the influence it has on people.

What happens if we don't think on human terms?

In this information age, people tend to be more selfish and greedy that they want to do things for their own personal gain. Individuality is very much a trait. Interdependence seems to be lost because of everyone wanting to have a bigger share of what the world can offer. I realized that this can be seen everywhere now.

The environment and technology. Starting from about 50 years ago when the industrial revolution began taking place, fossil fuels are used in almost everything. A sense of the future was felt by mostly everyone but the nature and the environment took a hard blow from all the advancements in daily living. The people of the earth, formerly one with its habitat, began to use the nature as a main resource for their factories. The losses in the environment were not compensated nor consistently replaced. The fruits of such ignorance are only starting to be felt at this time when scarcity of resources is very much an issue in most countries. Now that the world is fighting back to us for everything we did to it, people want to “renovate” nature.

The huge powerful countries are in strict watch since they are the ones that have advance technologies and therefore, consuming most of the fossil fuels of the earth then emitting carbon. I believe that they are the ones that carry the most responsibility to be more “green” compared to smaller, developing countries. They don’t only use most of the organic good stuff on earth but they have the most ways to be more effective in the mission to save it. They have the technology and the specialists to think of clever, clean ways to be more earth friendly. But one question they must take into consideration is, how much are they willing to risk for the future of the earth? Their support of whatever organization can sabotage their businesses and industries. It is very risky for them.

We all live in one world that we have to take care of if we still want to live a few more million years. Everyone has a responsibility to the environment we all share. The space we stand in in this earth is ours and we should love it the same way we love ourselves.