Organized Groups

            People join together and form groups to achieve a goal that would otherwise be impossible or difficult to accomplish individually. But does everyone truly benefit from pursuing a goal as a group? As stated in Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action, “The very fact that a goal or purpose is common to a group means that no one in the group is excluded from the benefit or satisfaction brought about by its achievement.” This means that because people within a group share the same goal, once that goal is achieved, everyone logically should benefit from it. I would agree with Olson because of this definition of what a ‘group’ is.

            In his opening paragraphs, Olson defines a group as something that benefits all individual members. To me this meant that a group couldn’t be such if it only helped to benefit a few members or a leader. The reason being that a group has to share a common goal. I don’t believe that people would join together and form groups to achieve something that they can achieve individually. By following this definition of what a group is, and understanding that a group’s goal is the same goal as every individual within that group, it is undeniable that Olson’s statement is correct. No one is excluded from a group’s accomplishment and they must all benefit.


            I chose this quote from Olson’s book because I believe in his words and his definition of what a group is. People often mistake what a true ‘group’ is. Groups do not live to serve an individuals ambition, they are there to serve everyone’s interest. This quote has helped me realize that when forming a group, it is crucial that the goal is the same, and that it benefits all within the group. If one follows this belief joining together with others and completing tasks are easy.

Brown V. The Board of Education

             In the famous Brown V. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court dictated that “separate but equal” was a violation of the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Their reason for this decision was due to the idea that “that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children.” This means that although the black and white schools might have been equal, the idea of racial segregation itself made them both unethical and unequal. African Americans children were made to feel inferior to Caucasian children because they were being told that they weren’t good enough to go to the same school.

            The Equal Protection Clause provides equal protection to all individuals under the same law. The idea of racial segregation is the furthest idea from equal due to the fact that the law “separate but equal” was founded on racial prejudice meant to target African Americans children, not Caucasian children. Caucasian children didn’t have to feel inferior because of the segregation; this actually built a sense of superiority. They didn’t have a ancestral history of slavery in America to overcome, or have to face the same obstacles African American children faced in society. So how can they be equal under that law? Their facilities weren’t truly the same because of the different challenges.

            The Brown V. The Board of Education was one of the most important and influential cases in our nations history. It reminded the people that the law was created for all to benefit from equally. It also assisted in the progression of a dark, shameful time in our history. I chose this case because today’s America I believe is showing sign of racial prejudice and segregation towards other races. People need to remember that it is both unconstitutional to attack specific racial groups because under the law we are all equal.

In order to create a strong government which doesn’t abuse its influence on its people, the systems of ‘Separation of Powers’ and Checks and Balances’ were created. The purpose of these system, as stated in the blog The American Political System, “2/20 The Constitution and the Federalist” Pt.1, These two principles were designed above all else to prevent tyranny, even at the expense of effective government." To clarify, the goal of these two systems were to keep a sole power from controlling a country. And although the systems do have their downfalls, like gridlocks, it is the price required to avoid tyranny.

The separation of power divides a government's responsibilities into three branches, which keeps all powers from being under one person or party. Although this undeniably denies the complete tyranny of a country, without Check and Balances it would fail. Checks and Balances allows each branch to hold some power over the other, preventing one branch from overshadowing the other two. With both systems a party cannot take full control of the country because they will always have opposition with the power to ‘check’ them.

Nonetheless the system isn’t perfect. With branches being able to check each other it can also halt effective decision making. One example the article uses is the republicans opposition of the Obama administration. The republicans have attempted to stall or destroy most of President Obama’s plans, like the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes Obama’s act isn’t the problem. The issue is that no action was being taken because there were too much of the legislative branch using its power over the executive branch. The systems aren’t perfect but they do succeed in impeding tyranny.

Federalist #10: Nature of Man

            Due to the multiplicity of human interest, desires, and needs, factions will remain absolute. In Federalists 10, James Madison best described this by stating, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the differences of civil society.” In other words, Factions are the result of humans succumbing to their natural instinct. Man’s natural instinct is to unite with others with similar passions in order to achieve a shared objective. This unity of man usually results in differences within a society, since not all individuals and/or groups share the same objectives. What’s most interesting about Madison’s statement is how his view on faction and human nature relates to Thomas Hobbes own views in his depiction of life in the ‘state of nature.’

            In Hobbes’ idea of ‘state of nature,’ he describes humans being violent and egoist in a lawless society where they are in their most “natural” state. Hobbes believed people would only act for their own self-interest, which would lead to rampant violence. They both seem to believe that left unchecked man’s self-motivated actions in their natural form would lead to them harming each other. Because of this belief, Madison and Hobbes urge the limitation on some freedoms in order to guarantee other freedoms for both factions and individual. That is where their shared view ends though. Unlike Hobbes who supports a Monarch to set these limitations, Madison urges for a democratic republic to choose.

            In the end, both Madison and Hobbes bring valid points to the discussion. In my opinion neither are incorrect in their views. I do believe humans left completely unsupervised would revert to their most natural state and would serve their interest above others. One could make the argument that not all humans would behave in such a manner, but when cornered by other’s selfish actions one might be forced to serve their own best interests. This would inevitably bring those with common goals together, forming factions and would divide does with conflicting desires.