As civil rights developed historically it becomes obvious that there are flaws, or contradictions, within civil rights, in other words they do not go far enough in providing freedom for people. This then leads to the development of political rights, and then to social rights. It should also be obvious that many people have not been able to enjoy these rights, this is true today, but especially in the past. This is a contradiction that goes to the heart of American politics, as from the very beginning it has been asserted that all people are entitled to rights (Declaration of Independence), yet it is obvious that not everyone enjoyed these rights. A major aspect of American history is trying to resolve this contradiction, or make the belief (what Chesterton calls a theory) in the Declaration a reality. So, not only has the idea of rights become deeper over the years, but there has also been a process of expanding rights to more and more people. Again, this idea of seeing how things are connected and how they develop over time is what is meant by a dialectical approach.
Part of the idea of seeing things as connected means seeing how their opposite is also connected to them. So, in the case of civil rights, if civil rights are meant to create freedom, then the opposite of freedom is also a part of civil rights because civil rights only go so far in providing freedom. Once you realize that these opposites (freedom and unfreedom) are connected it pushes you on to resolving that contradiction, so you get to an idea of political rights, and so forth. This process tends to work itself out throughout history, and involves large groups of people, not just individuals. This can be a tricky idea to grasp, but I think Marshall shows how rights have evolved over time, in each case striving to provide more freedom to people. So, if you have already read Marshall it might be easier to understand.
Another thing to consider is if it is even possible for people to enjoy the fullest enjoyment of rights (civil, political, and social) under a capitalist system. There seems to be a strong contradiction between an economic system based on the profit-motive and a political society which is supposed to grant people rights. It would seem that too often people's rights are sacrificed in the name of profit. This would be an example then of a contradiction in society. Philosophers, including Marxists, who hold to a dialectical view of things would argue that history is the process of removing these contradictions, almost like going through different levels of development. At the level we are at right now, there are still many contradictions that have not been dealt with. For one, the US lags behind many other countries in providing social rights, as mentioned already. But, even in other countries that grant these rights, like European countries, there is still a conflict between rights and a profit driven economic system. For Marxists, the only way to resolve this contradiction is with socialism. Marshall seems not to share this view, but I would argue there are still lingering contradictions in societies even with fairly extensive social rights. That leads to a whole set of other questions which I will not go into now.
These are things to consider, but what exactly are the different kinds of rights? Civil rights refer to basic freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, a free press, and due process of law, which itself means that the government must follow certain rules and procedures before it can deprive anyone of life, liberty or property, as it says in the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. Civil rights specify how the legal process works, and limits the power of the government. Political rights refer to the right to vote and to participate in the political process, or as Aristotle would say, the art of "ruling and being ruled." Social rights refers to rights like education and healthcare, and other rights that Marshall says are necessary to lead a "civilized life." The notion of economic security is fundamental to this concept.
Civil rights refer to certain protections each individual is granted, and where they are free from any kind of government interference. In Western political philosophy, the idea of civil rights can be summed up by what John Locke referred to as "natural rights": life, liberty, and property. Locke was a profound influence on Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Marshall shows that civil rights, although inherently against the idea of slavery, is fairly limited in its meaning, and can also serve to deny social protection :
Of course, we are familiar with the "civil rights movement" for equality. The very denial of these rights for so many years, and the hypocrisy of American rhetoric explains why Douglass cannot join in the celebrations of Independence Day, and also reminds people that the meaning we give to events is influenced by our values and perspective. But, many of aspects of the civil rights movement also contained a demand for greater political participation as well as social protections. After civil rights were established the next demand came in the form of greater political participation, the right to vote and hold office. Unlike pure civil rights which poses no threat to the capitalist system, extending the right to vote to the whole population could lead to a greater demand for equality by passing laws to that effect:
The extension of political rights then leads to the demand for social rights:
In the 1930s-40s, the idea of social rights, always more controversial in the US, was gaining force. Again, this is best represented by FDR's Economic Bill of Rights (this would imply these rights should be made into constitutional amendments) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The "civil rights" movement could more accurately be described as the civil, political and social rights movements, as the movement had to struggle for all three simultaneously. Social rights continued to be an issue through the 1960s and 70s which saw the creation of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection, and the passage of landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Immigration Act, however since the 1980s, these rights have been scaled back, and redefined by the Reagan and Bush administrations as "privileges" or "desirable goals" but not necessarily rights, with very little pushback from Democratic leaders. To be fair, on the other side there are many Democrats who declare healthcare to be a right, and then vote against single payer healthcare, as happened recently in California.
Much of the animosity towards undocumented immigrants stems from the perception that they are "overburdening" public resources like education and healthcare. However, as it says in the 14th amendment, all people are entitled to due process of law and to the equal protection of the law. It does not specify citizenship as a qualification for legal rights, but is something extended to all people, regardless of class or status.
How did these rights come about, and what are rights in the first place? Rights are basically social norms or values, accepted by a large community of people. In liberal philosophy, your rights are inherent in nature, as Locke or Jefferson would say, or God-given, meaning that no government can take them away, and any government that tries to should be resisted.
Other political philosophers like Niccolò Machiavelli would say, that your rights are really just privileges that the government can take away if it interferes with the interests of the state. Machiavelli's ideas certainly seem more realistic, but if you accept his view, then there is no motivation to resist a government that tries to take away rights. On the other hand, Machiavelli's point was to remind people that our rights are not secure unless we have a political structure than can enforce our claims to rights, a point Locke would agree with.
These are things to consider, but what exactly are the different kinds of rights? Civil rights refer to basic freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, a free press, and due process of law, which itself means that the government must follow certain rules and procedures before it can deprive anyone of life, liberty or property, as it says in the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. Civil rights specify how the legal process works, and limits the power of the government. Political rights refer to the right to vote and to participate in the political process, or as Aristotle would say, the art of "ruling and being ruled." Social rights refers to rights like education and healthcare, and other rights that Marshall says are necessary to lead a "civilized life." The notion of economic security is fundamental to this concept.
Civil rights refer to certain protections each individual is granted, and where they are free from any kind of government interference. In Western political philosophy, the idea of civil rights can be summed up by what John Locke referred to as "natural rights": life, liberty, and property. Locke was a profound influence on Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Marshall shows that civil rights, although inherently against the idea of slavery, is fairly limited in its meaning, and can also serve to deny social protection :
The explanation lies in the fact that the core of citizenship at this stage was composed of civil rights. And civil rights were indispensable to a competitive market economy. They gave to each man, as part of his independent status, the power to engage as an independent unit in the economic struggle and made it possible to deny him social protection on the ground that he was equipped with the means to protect himself.
Of course, we are familiar with the "civil rights movement" for equality. The very denial of these rights for so many years, and the hypocrisy of American rhetoric explains why Douglass cannot join in the celebrations of Independence Day, and also reminds people that the meaning we give to events is influenced by our values and perspective. But, many of aspects of the civil rights movement also contained a demand for greater political participation as well as social protections. After civil rights were established the next demand came in the form of greater political participation, the right to vote and hold office. Unlike pure civil rights which poses no threat to the capitalist system, extending the right to vote to the whole population could lead to a greater demand for equality by passing laws to that effect:
The political rights of citizenship, unlike the civil rights, were full of potential danger to the capitalist system, although those who were cautiously extending them down to the social scale probably did not realized how great the danger was. They could hardly be expected to foresee what vast changes could be brought about by the peaceful use of political power, without a violent and bloody revolution.
The extension of political rights then leads to the demand for social rights:
But the normal method of establishing social rights is by the exercise of political power, for social rights imply an absolute right to a certain standard of civilization which is conditional only on the discharge of of the general duties of citizenship. Their content does not depend on the economic value of the individual claimant.
In the 1930s-40s, the idea of social rights, always more controversial in the US, was gaining force. Again, this is best represented by FDR's Economic Bill of Rights (this would imply these rights should be made into constitutional amendments) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The "civil rights" movement could more accurately be described as the civil, political and social rights movements, as the movement had to struggle for all three simultaneously. Social rights continued to be an issue through the 1960s and 70s which saw the creation of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection, and the passage of landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Immigration Act, however since the 1980s, these rights have been scaled back, and redefined by the Reagan and Bush administrations as "privileges" or "desirable goals" but not necessarily rights, with very little pushback from Democratic leaders. To be fair, on the other side there are many Democrats who declare healthcare to be a right, and then vote against single payer healthcare, as happened recently in California.
Much of the animosity towards undocumented immigrants stems from the perception that they are "overburdening" public resources like education and healthcare. However, as it says in the 14th amendment, all people are entitled to due process of law and to the equal protection of the law. It does not specify citizenship as a qualification for legal rights, but is something extended to all people, regardless of class or status.
How did these rights come about, and what are rights in the first place? Rights are basically social norms or values, accepted by a large community of people. In liberal philosophy, your rights are inherent in nature, as Locke or Jefferson would say, or God-given, meaning that no government can take them away, and any government that tries to should be resisted.
 |
| Machiavelli |
Modern political philosophers would say, rights are real, and exist outside the state, because of a moral consensus that people agree on. The idea of a rational consensus then becomes something binding on people, and in that sense real, but only as long as it is a consensus arrived at without force or coercion. The reality is most political, moral and ethical debates do feature elements of coercion whether in the media, schools, or elsewhere. If people were actually to debate morals under the ideal conditions, it is hard to say what people would really agree with, other than things that are universal like prohibitions against murder, and things like that. Other issues would have to be decided on a more localized basis. To be fair, most industrialized countries, with the exception of the US, do, for the most part, agree with the idea of healthcare and education as a right, but in the US these are ideas are divisive.
Marshall looks at the development of rights in Great Britain between the 17th-20th centuries. Its a long, slow development beginning with civil rights in the late 17th century. Political rights would not be won until the mid 19th century, and only partially, until well into the 20th century (women received the right to vote in 1928). The relationship between political and social rights in this example is interesting, as Marshall argues that as the working class won the right to a vote (a process that occurred gradually) there began a call for social rights through law and politics. As the working class gained in power, the demand for social rights grew, until the British granted it to its people in the 1940s, actually during the war, and then after, resulting in free college education and the National Health Service, a single payer healthcare system.
Marshall's analysis gives the impression that rights develop out of one another and follow a logical sequence: civil, political and social. However, the other sociologists Michael Mann and Charles Tilly bring a different approach. Mann looks at rights as "ruling class strategies" (back to Machiavelli) that the ruling class concedes in order to gain the obedience of the population, to accept their rule as being legitimate. So, according to this logic, the ruling class only gives out social rights when it feels it has to, when it feels that the working class will not accept them any other way. This raises the question, why do people in the United States accept a ruling class that does not grant social rights? In a sense, people in the US give their obedience for very little, compared to other countries. Mann argues, in a somewhat convoluted way, that since the American white male working class won the right to a vote at an earlier date than the British working class, before socialism was an important movement, they never learned to articulate an idea of social rights.
Of course, Mann also brings attention to the fact that a ruling class exists even in countries that grant social rights. Here Mann goes beyond Marshall's single example of Great Britain, and looks at the historical development of rights in other countries, and several different paths for rights to develop. For example, he finds in Imperial Germany, before World War I, a government that granted civil and social rights, but not political rights, under Otto von Bismarck.
The Soviet Union, and other communist countries, granted extensive social rights, but neither civil or political rights. The conclusion from this is that social rights can exist in an authoritarian government, and is no guarantee that social rights assumes a strong democratic foundation, if anything, the most valuable rights are political rights, the rights that elites hold on to the most. This is not to disparage social rights, or civil rights. Mann shows, in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, you have no rights at all. You cannot automatically assume a government that grants social rights is democratic, you need all three. Tilly's argument, largely covers the same ground, offering a broader historical analysis than given by Marshall.
In the U.S. we have the Bill of Rights, but the concept of rights, sometimes grouped together as "human rights" has found expression in other sources as well. The best example is the United Nation's International Bill of Rights, composed of three separate documents the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESER, signed by the U.S., but not ratified). Some argue, that the concept of "human rights" conceals Western and secular biases, but supporters argue these rights make up only general statements that everyone can agree on.
The idea of social rights then speaks to the idea that everyone is entitled as Marshall says "to a certain standard of civilization" meaning that people are entitled to the things necessary for a healthy and productive life. Political struggles for these rights only increased during the 20th century. In the U.S. the greatest period for the extension of social rights occurred between the 1930s and 1970s beginning from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. When Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis for a sanitation worker's strike, and he even renamed his movement, the "poor people's campaign" showing that he saw his struggle as something evolving, first to eliminate legal segregation which did consist of the government interfering in the lives of black people by telling them where they could eat, work, etc., to a movement that struggled to secure the basic necessities of life for all people.
Marshall argues demand for social rights begins with public education. If civil rights means the government cannot interfere with you, then on that basis alone there is no clear right to provide education for all people. It is commonly accepted that everyone is entitled to go to school, at least primary school, but this is only because we accept the idea of education as a kind of social right that everyone needs. In today's politics, things like healthcare would be considered a social right. This however makes it clear, that not everyone agrees on the idea of social rights. When it comes to healthcare most other countries have accepted it as a social right, this is still something debated in the U.S. With education there is a continuing effort to privatize education and de-fund and eventually shut down many public schools.
Marshall's argument for rights is also compelling in that there is a kind of logic or evolution for rights: civil, political, and social. Mann argues, the US followed a different path of development than the British, and explains why social rights are relatively so few compared to other nations. Mann argues that because political rights were granted so early (1820s or so) before the development of socialist movements. But, consider his definition of democracy and political rights. For Mann, like many sociologists, assumes that a state can be considered democratic and grant political rights when the white, male, adult population receives the right to vote. What if we use a more modern definition of democracy, where all adults have the right to vote, not based on race or gender?
By that standard, the US did not really become a democracy until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act is passed. Prior to that, black people did not have the right to vote. Following that, there is a strong movement for social rights (Medicare and Medicaid are created the same year) lasting through the 1970s. In fact, the civil rights movement should really be called the civil, political, and social rights movement. In other words, Marshall argues that as workers in Europe gained political rights, they soon began to demand social rights, similar to what happened in the US in the late 60s. As mentioned, there has been a strong conservative backlash against these ideas since the 1980s, which, at best, were at their peak in the 1930-70s, and really only about from the late 60s through late 70s, a fairly short period of time in the context of American history. Public opinion polls now show that a clear majority, almost 2/3 or more in some cases, support core social rights like public education and even healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy, and in favor of immigration.
https://prospect.org/article/most-americans-are-liberal-even-if-they-don’t-know-it
Of course this has not, for the most part, translated into public policy.
Another aspect to consider is to what extent we need rights. As mentioned rights are based on the notion of class conflict, but would legal rights still be needed in a classless society? For example, Marx was not simply for raising the minimum wage, but for getting rid of the system of wage labor entirely. A minimum wage would be a good example of a social right, but should people put their energy in raising the minimum wage, or getting rid of the wage system?
There are many other rights based issues to focus on. Certainly, immigrant deportation and detainment policy is one of the most important civil rights issue at the present moment. It is also fair to point out that many of these policies were ongoing during the Obama administration, but only now are people taking this seriously. The overall decline in civil rights since 2001 regarding surveillance, the increase in police powers, is a constant feature of American life now, which of course also relates to immigration. ICE was created by the Homeland Security Act in 2002, supported by Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Charles Schumer (who all also voted for the PATRIOT Act).
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention
The curtailment of political rights, is another issue, as Republicans come up with new schemes to deprive people of the right to vote, now validated by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, so called blue states like NY still have a "closed primary" making it harder to vote in primary elections, not to mention the mysterious purging of hundreds of thousands of voters during the Democratic primary of 2016. Not surprisingly, a little known but important story is the DNC fraud lawsuit which revealed that the primaries are basically a fraud anyway.
https://medium.com/the-jist/the-dismissed-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-explained-85f7a5c26574
One passage that stands out, and which is of interest, is that the DNC lawyer basically admitted that political primaries do not have to be fair and impartial, and that they can be as biased as they want to whatever candidate they prefer:
Marshall looks at the development of rights in Great Britain between the 17th-20th centuries. Its a long, slow development beginning with civil rights in the late 17th century. Political rights would not be won until the mid 19th century, and only partially, until well into the 20th century (women received the right to vote in 1928). The relationship between political and social rights in this example is interesting, as Marshall argues that as the working class won the right to a vote (a process that occurred gradually) there began a call for social rights through law and politics. As the working class gained in power, the demand for social rights grew, until the British granted it to its people in the 1940s, actually during the war, and then after, resulting in free college education and the National Health Service, a single payer healthcare system.
Marshall's analysis gives the impression that rights develop out of one another and follow a logical sequence: civil, political and social. However, the other sociologists Michael Mann and Charles Tilly bring a different approach. Mann looks at rights as "ruling class strategies" (back to Machiavelli) that the ruling class concedes in order to gain the obedience of the population, to accept their rule as being legitimate. So, according to this logic, the ruling class only gives out social rights when it feels it has to, when it feels that the working class will not accept them any other way. This raises the question, why do people in the United States accept a ruling class that does not grant social rights? In a sense, people in the US give their obedience for very little, compared to other countries. Mann argues, in a somewhat convoluted way, that since the American white male working class won the right to a vote at an earlier date than the British working class, before socialism was an important movement, they never learned to articulate an idea of social rights.
 |
| Bismarck |
Of course, Mann also brings attention to the fact that a ruling class exists even in countries that grant social rights. Here Mann goes beyond Marshall's single example of Great Britain, and looks at the historical development of rights in other countries, and several different paths for rights to develop. For example, he finds in Imperial Germany, before World War I, a government that granted civil and social rights, but not political rights, under Otto von Bismarck.
The Soviet Union, and other communist countries, granted extensive social rights, but neither civil or political rights. The conclusion from this is that social rights can exist in an authoritarian government, and is no guarantee that social rights assumes a strong democratic foundation, if anything, the most valuable rights are political rights, the rights that elites hold on to the most. This is not to disparage social rights, or civil rights. Mann shows, in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, you have no rights at all. You cannot automatically assume a government that grants social rights is democratic, you need all three. Tilly's argument, largely covers the same ground, offering a broader historical analysis than given by Marshall.
In the U.S. we have the Bill of Rights, but the concept of rights, sometimes grouped together as "human rights" has found expression in other sources as well. The best example is the United Nation's International Bill of Rights, composed of three separate documents the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESER, signed by the U.S., but not ratified). Some argue, that the concept of "human rights" conceals Western and secular biases, but supporters argue these rights make up only general statements that everyone can agree on.
The idea of social rights then speaks to the idea that everyone is entitled as Marshall says "to a certain standard of civilization" meaning that people are entitled to the things necessary for a healthy and productive life. Political struggles for these rights only increased during the 20th century. In the U.S. the greatest period for the extension of social rights occurred between the 1930s and 1970s beginning from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. When Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis for a sanitation worker's strike, and he even renamed his movement, the "poor people's campaign" showing that he saw his struggle as something evolving, first to eliminate legal segregation which did consist of the government interfering in the lives of black people by telling them where they could eat, work, etc., to a movement that struggled to secure the basic necessities of life for all people.
Since the 1980s, and especially after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, there has been a dramatic scaling back and reduction of the idea of social rights. Despite this, social rights still make up 2/3 of the government budget in the form of benefits paid out through programs like Medicare and Social Security (the other 1/3 being almost all spending on military, homeland security, and interest on debt). The economist Paul Krugman commented that the US government is like "an insurance company with an army," being that most of its spending is basically providing some form of social insurance.
Marshall argues demand for social rights begins with public education. If civil rights means the government cannot interfere with you, then on that basis alone there is no clear right to provide education for all people. It is commonly accepted that everyone is entitled to go to school, at least primary school, but this is only because we accept the idea of education as a kind of social right that everyone needs. In today's politics, things like healthcare would be considered a social right. This however makes it clear, that not everyone agrees on the idea of social rights. When it comes to healthcare most other countries have accepted it as a social right, this is still something debated in the U.S. With education there is a continuing effort to privatize education and de-fund and eventually shut down many public schools.Marshall's argument for rights is also compelling in that there is a kind of logic or evolution for rights: civil, political, and social. Mann argues, the US followed a different path of development than the British, and explains why social rights are relatively so few compared to other nations. Mann argues that because political rights were granted so early (1820s or so) before the development of socialist movements. But, consider his definition of democracy and political rights. For Mann, like many sociologists, assumes that a state can be considered democratic and grant political rights when the white, male, adult population receives the right to vote. What if we use a more modern definition of democracy, where all adults have the right to vote, not based on race or gender?
By that standard, the US did not really become a democracy until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act is passed. Prior to that, black people did not have the right to vote. Following that, there is a strong movement for social rights (Medicare and Medicaid are created the same year) lasting through the 1970s. In fact, the civil rights movement should really be called the civil, political, and social rights movement. In other words, Marshall argues that as workers in Europe gained political rights, they soon began to demand social rights, similar to what happened in the US in the late 60s. As mentioned, there has been a strong conservative backlash against these ideas since the 1980s, which, at best, were at their peak in the 1930-70s, and really only about from the late 60s through late 70s, a fairly short period of time in the context of American history. Public opinion polls now show that a clear majority, almost 2/3 or more in some cases, support core social rights like public education and even healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy, and in favor of immigration.
https://prospect.org/article/most-americans-are-liberal-even-if-they-don’t-know-it
Of course this has not, for the most part, translated into public policy.
Another aspect to consider is to what extent we need rights. As mentioned rights are based on the notion of class conflict, but would legal rights still be needed in a classless society? For example, Marx was not simply for raising the minimum wage, but for getting rid of the system of wage labor entirely. A minimum wage would be a good example of a social right, but should people put their energy in raising the minimum wage, or getting rid of the wage system?
There are many other rights based issues to focus on. Certainly, immigrant deportation and detainment policy is one of the most important civil rights issue at the present moment. It is also fair to point out that many of these policies were ongoing during the Obama administration, but only now are people taking this seriously. The overall decline in civil rights since 2001 regarding surveillance, the increase in police powers, is a constant feature of American life now, which of course also relates to immigration. ICE was created by the Homeland Security Act in 2002, supported by Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Charles Schumer (who all also voted for the PATRIOT Act).
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention
The curtailment of political rights, is another issue, as Republicans come up with new schemes to deprive people of the right to vote, now validated by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, so called blue states like NY still have a "closed primary" making it harder to vote in primary elections, not to mention the mysterious purging of hundreds of thousands of voters during the Democratic primary of 2016. Not surprisingly, a little known but important story is the DNC fraud lawsuit which revealed that the primaries are basically a fraud anyway.
https://medium.com/the-jist/the-dismissed-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-explained-85f7a5c26574
One passage that stands out, and which is of interest, is that the DNC lawyer basically admitted that political primaries do not have to be fair and impartial, and that they can be as biased as they want to whatever candidate they prefer:
“We could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right… There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise.”
So, it would seem then that none of the rights are really all that secure in the US.
Next class, we begin discussing Congress and the different branches of the federal government.
According to Marshall: In today's politics, things like healthcare would be considered a social right that everyone needs. This however makes it clear, that not everyone agrees on the idea of social rights When it comes to healthcare most other countries have accepted it as a social right , that is still something to debated in the U.S. With education there is a continuing effort to privatize education and de-fund and shut down many public schools.
ReplyDeleteAns. It is plain to see the way politicsn takes us through a mixed up process. his country is the home of many who have sacrifice their lives in order to grant us the freedom and desire to grow not only healthy, yet educated. Politics always grabs and cuts the very essence of humans who are scholars from the poorest communities. remove the pubic educational system and we shall have chaos and riots throughout this country. one of the most fundamental aspects of free educational service is due to the financial burden many families have.
It has been a personal experience as to the plight of the poor due to resources, communities and families who are unable to afford private schools. politicians need to understand and find ways from the negative to the most innovative ways the public school system can accomplish the task at hand. stop removing resources which impede a student and families are unable to provide the best education for all children.
I agree that the government should not remove resources that they know a majority of people can not afford such as funding schools. I like how you said if the government removes the public school funding, then this country would be chaotic because some people do not have a lot of money, but yet they are very smart and do well academically. I feel like these students would not be able to display their intelligence if it is not for these funded schools. If the government stops funding public schools, then that would be lead to more inequality in our society because that would just allow one class in our society to have better opportunities and that class would obviously be the wealthy class.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarshall said"The explanation lies in the fact that the core of citizenship at this stage was composed of civil rights. And civil rights were indispensable to a competitive market economy. They gave to each man, as part of his independent status, the power to engage as an independent unit in the economic struggle and made it possible to deny him social protection on the ground that he was equipped with the means to protect himself.
ReplyDeleteI think Marshall tries to explain us in his way that the right we have were given to us for the sake of capitalism instead of basic human right. Thus people were given more economical power than human rights they needed, this is pretty problematic when we know how much our basic rights are limited so that the government or any capital institutions can take advantage on us.
I chose this quote because our civil right is almost neglected when it comes to capitalism. The fact that the government still can not decommodify health and educational system says a lot about what we have as a government.
Marshall emphasizes citizen's rights and freedom. He suggests that there are three type of rights.The civil which is the right of freedom and liberty. Political rights, which is the right to vote and run as candidate. Social rights which is the right to get resources like insurance and education. I think that the social rights are in danger since the government can do what he wants, so we could say that there're not social rights at all because economy and the government prevent us to obtain those services.
ReplyDeleteWhen Marshall said: "The explanation lies in the fact that the core of citizenship at this stage was composed of civil rights. And civil rights were indispensable to a competitive market economy. They gave to each man, as part of his independent status, the power to engage as an independent unit in the economic struggle and made it possible to deny him social protection on the ground that he was equipped with the means to protect himself." I believe according to his quote, that all citizens and he specified "Citizenship", means "All" as a package given to someone have the rights of living benefits. he did not say the rich or the poor, or the ill or the healthy, he meant all. When one struggles, equal rights give you the chance to claim for your economic benefits. There are no exceptions. Protection to the individual is part of that benefit. You were born or being a citizen of this country, then you will obtain what is yours. Is it true now days? perhaps no, but at least we have a voice to fight and speak for our rights.
ReplyDeleteTo be a citizen means that you are entitled to certain things, and it suggests the equality of all members to these entitlements. Although, as it says in the 14th Amendment, all "persons" are entitled to "civil rights" like "due process" and "equal protection of the laws," not restricted by citizenship. I chose this quote because in today world this is still an issue. We do not have any equal right. They come with limitations. This is a battle that is still going on today. After watching the video on DR. King, I became very upset His fight was real. He did not want violence to be a choice or option. He was using his freedom of speech to voice that change was in need. I believe he lost his life due to racism, because people could not except change. This is a current issue today.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the rights of the citizens in America are protected by the laws of America, but I disagree with these laws being enforced by the government. I feel like the U.S government and the U.S officers are not doing a good job in reinforcing these laws because I feel like they choose what laws they want to reinforce and to who they want to reinforce the laws to. For example, U.S officers targeting black males has been a huge issue nowadays. Black males could be holding anything in their hands and the police officers will automatically assume that those black males are armed and then an innocent life is taken away. Would the police officers be so quick to assume that a white male was armed?
ReplyDeleteEven if the white male is armed, the police would most likely try to cover it up for the white male. This just goes to show you how racially unequal this society is. Individuals being targeted due to their race is one of the reasons why I think that the authoritive people in the U.S do not abide by the 14th amendment and I think that that is why Douglass is saying that the 4th of July is not an Independence Day that black people should be celebrating. Slavery ended years ago, but yet the authoritive people in the U.S still find a way to discriminate towards black people.
In addition, I do agree with Marshall when he says that the American idea is influenced by the English institutions. The government claims that the U.S citizens are protected by the laws, but the rights of which U.S citizens exactly? The people who have their rights protected in the U.S are either white people or wealthy people and Marshall's quote that says that the civil rights are limited and denies social protection proves my statement:
" They gave to each man, as part of his independence status, the power to engage as an independent unit in the economic struggle and made it possible to deny him social protection."
Marshall is saying that the government gave each man the power to participate in the economic hardships. Therefore, the government allowed the social rights of the U.S citizens to be taken away from them.
I feel T.H. Marshal laid the ground work for future and present civil rights leaders. By him presenting civil rights in three different forums civil, political, and social it allows present civil rights leaders to focus on pressing issues. Civil rights inequality can present itself in many different ways and by having understanding on the many ways that civil rights violations can present itself we can better prepare to combat it. We have had many great civil rights leaders that have been able to implement this knowledge and in so doing they have been able to focus on the issues at hand without having to battle the distractions that can take away from the issues at hand.
ReplyDeleteCivil rights was always a touchy topic for blacks. I am forever grateful to those who fought for my freedom. Dr. King is a primary leader who place his life on the line to ensure that today we are free to vote, to attend the same schools as white and to be done away with almost every stipulations placed on blacks by white rulers.
ReplyDeleteThere was the idea that citizens would be free or have some kind of priviledge, yet blacks weren't apart of that participation. Today the definition of citizens are so different that no matter what race you are, you have a voice. The great fight though is with those who are noncitizens. I wonder how and what its going to take for all to be free no matter their social status.
The equal rights subject continues to be front and center in many political issues affecting our country. The men and women whom stood up for equality and set forth movements for change have laid a ground work that many of of us have benefited from and can continue to follow. Changes have taken place thanks to those that in many cases risked everything including their own life's to stand up for what is right. Equal rights is something that we are guaranteed by the Constitution however many have not been able to enjoy. Once again thanks to those who came before us and to those who continue the fight.
ReplyDelete