I think the section that stood out to me most was section XX. It talks about how war does not lead to peace it only leads to more violence and victory (depending on what side you are on). Then, it says that we need to "replace our perpetual war to end war" (Pg. 7) I think this really stuck out to me because I have never thought about war this way. I believe that this is true, but this has never ran across my brain in this way. I totally agree with this. How can people be violent against others, and expect those other people not to act. I think everybody is protective of their friend or family, and if somebody messes with them we want to defend them. I think individual cultures do this. The only way somebody would not retaliate, would be if that culture was completely destroyed. Would there be peace? Maybe? Other cultures might get involved, because they feel that what just happened is not right. But is that the way we want to get peace, by destroying other cultures? Section XX just made me think about these kinds of things, and it was interesting to me.
Near the end of his second essay, Berry talks about competition. Today we are taught to think competition is a good thing. It is supposed to make producers try and make the best product, so that they can sell the most. If consumers have everybody trying to make the best product, then consumers should have a pretty good selection to choose from. The way Berry sees competition is like war. Berry states, "Competition destroys competition. The law of competition implies that many competitors,competing without restraint, will ultimately and inevitably reduce the number of competitors to one. The law of competition, in short, is the law of war" (Pg. 20). I think he has a pretty good idea here. He talks about how nowadays producers will try to make their product as cheaply as possible, but turn around and sell it for a high price. This is the way major corporations work. This is not good competition for the consumer because we are not getting the best product anymore. To the corporations, it is all about money. Whoever can make their product the cheapest, but still sell sell the most, will be the richest. In the end, maybe that corporation will drive everybody else out of business, completely taking options for the consumer.
One word that stood out to me was the word "proxies". At first I was not sure what Berry meant when he used this word. I had to read it at least three times. When I looked it up, I found that it means, "a person authorized to act on behalf of another." Even after I looked it up, I had to read it again to better understand it. It is important to understand this word for two reasons. One, he uses it a couple different times, so if you did not know what it meant, then you would be lost. Two, because I think he feels strongly about "proxies" and how he thinks we have given them to corporations. He feels that we should allow large corporations to decide for us without first asking us.
In section XVII Berry talks about how some of our privacy and freedoms were taken away because the government says it is okay to do that if its is to protect us. I think I agree with this, but at the same time, I agree with Berry. Why aren't the people asked if that is what they want?
No comments:
Post a Comment