Marx Reading Qs for 5/1

Appropriately, today is May Day which is also International Workers Day or Labour Day, celebrating the achievements of the worker’s movement.  In most places celebrating May Day they get the day off.  We, alas, must alienate our labor and discuss The Communist Manifesto.

he Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet for public distribution and thus is a streamlined version of Marxism, meant to make a political appeal; hence the! Excessive! Use! Of! Exclamation! Points!  Can you tell what audience it is intended for?
2.    Be sure you understanding the following terms:  bourgeosie, proletariat, historical materialism, class, class struggle, commodification, and alienation.
3.    How do Marx and Engels use historical materialism to explain the shift from feudal to capitalist economies?
4.    How do Marx and Engels use historical materialism explain the expansion of democracy during this time?  How is this different from more traditional explanations of political changes in the 19th century?
5.    What will lead to yet another shift in economic relations?  Is there any tension between their economic and political explanations?
6.    What features of globalization do Marx and Engels describe?  What features do they miss?
7.    Why is Communism an international movement, according Marx and Engels?
8.    Why is Marx critical of socialism?  Did this surprise you

9.  What does Marx think will happen to political power and the state?  (839)

Discussion Qs Marx 4/29

Be the title justified or not, Karl Marx is widely regarded as the “father of Communism.”  That description at times harms the opinion which others hold of him though, as a quite of good majority of his ideas regarding economics came from the works of Adam Smith, who has been credited as being the “father of modern economics.” Smith’s influence on Marx can be seen in his 1844 piece of work entitled Alienated Labor. At its core Alienated Labor is an attack on capitalism and in it Marx tries to illustrate the negative effects of it on the population.
“The only wheels which political economy puts in motion are greed and the war among the greedy, competition.” (p. 790) Marx bases his on attack on capitalism in the belief that in capitalism the population boils down into the “haves” and the “have-nots” or as he describes them (p. 790) the “proprietors” and the “propertyless workers.” Marx also feels that in capitalism work does not benefit the worker and instead benefits only the companies. “The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces.” (p. 791)
Another problem which capitalism causes at least in the eyes of Marx is that it puts humans in a state of being which they are not accustomed to being in. “…Labor is external to the laborer – that is, it is not part of his nature…” Marx feels that labor “is not the satisfaction of a need but only a means to satisfy other needs.” (p. 792) Those two things are arguably the two biggest faults that Marx has with capitalism; first the idea that capitalism is a breeding ground for the establishment of the class system and second that it is not in human nature to do work that does not benefit you and instead benefits others.
In my opinion the most interesting thing which Marx writes about in Alienated Labor deals with the idea of working for the benefit of “gods.” On page 795 we see Marx make mention of the construction of temples in such places as Egypt, India and Mexico that appear to be constructed for “gods.” He believes that “if his activity is torment for him, it must be the pleasure and the life-enjoyment for another. Not gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man.” I am curious as to whether this belief that god can not influence people into doing things opened him up to receiving any flack from the religious communities at the time for being in a sense atheist.

Discussion Questions

1.Did Marx’s belief that gods can not influence the work which workers do, carry over into the policies of the Soviet Union post Bolshevik revolution?

2.Does Marx see private property as being a good thing or a bad thing? Is it something attributed only towards capitalism?

3.How are the policies of Marx associated towards the ideas of Adam Smith?

4.What does Marx mean on page 793 when he states that “the animalistic becomes the human and the human the animalistic?”

Marx Discussion Qs for 4/29

n Karl Marx’s “Alienated Labor,” he suggests that as a result of capitalism, humans have been separated from or stripped of their human nature.  Marx criticizes capitalism because he claims that such a system makes it inevitable for workers to lose the nature of themselves because they do not have control over their work.  Since wage workers sell their labor in order to earn a living and the bourgeoisie owns the labor process, the product of the worker’s labor is alien to the worker.  The worker feels disassociated from the product because he/she is not working as an expression of his/her human nature, but rather out of necessity to earn a living.  Not identifying with the fruits of one’s labor leads to frustration and thus alienation.  Additionally, capitalism has an inherent problem built into it as the “more objects the worker produces, the fewer he can own and the more he falls under the domination of his product” (791).
Karl Marx advances his claim that capitalist societies produce individuals who are detached and alienated from their labor and thus their human nature in his “The German Ideology.”  In “The German Ideology,” Marx explains his theory of historic materialism.  He criticizes the theory of idealism that had been dominating Germany which argues that the world is somehow created through the categories that humans impose on it through their minds.  Instead Marx focused on the physical elements of life and suggests that the world is created by actual material activity.  Marx’s main assumption in this work is that in order for humans to continue existing from generation to generation, they need to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life.  He uses this premise to argue that humans are inevitably involved and dependent on their relations to production.
Karl Marx seems to hold the belief that human beings fulfill their potential as humans through labor.  People will feel satisfied and have a sense of pride if they are able to commit to their work.  If the goal of existence is to attain happiness, Marx claims that human beings must be given opportunities to express themselves in the form of labor.  Marx believes that it is capitalist society that has made the false distinction between work and play.  Human fulfillment and happiness comes from a sense of accomplishment.
“In taking from man the object of his production, alienated labor takes from his species-life, his actual and objective existence as a species.  It changes his superiority to the animal to inferiority, since he is deprived of nature, his inorganic body” (794).  Marx’s view of humans living in capitalist society is so negative that he claims that they are inferior to animals.  Because humans have “conscious life activity” (793), they are separate and distinct from animals.  Animals are only capable of satisfying immediate desires, while the life activity of human beings is conscious and rational.  Marx reasons that humans in capitalist societies are inferior to animals because humans have the potential to accomplish more and thus gain more happiness from life, but instead the alienation of labor strips them of their very nature and existence and turns humans into miserable robots.  Ironically, animals accomplish less and have less to be happy about yet they manage to live happier lives than the more intelligent species of humans.

Discussion Questions:
1. If human beings alienate themselves from capitalist society, will they be freer?  Are humans naturally social beings?  Would someone who packed up their bags and lived in the wilderness with no other humans be happier than someone living in a capitalist society?  Is it better to be free but alone or social but robotic?
2. Are material needs part of human nature?  Are human beings by nature materialistic?
3. What would Marx’s state of nature look like?
4. What fundamental assumptions about human beings underlie Marx’s theory of alienation?

---

Attachment: Marx paper.doc (37k bytes) Open

Marx Reading Qs for 4/29

1.    What are the definitions of the following Marxist terms:  alienation, labor, historical materialism, class, classless society.
2.    What is the process by which labor produces alienation, according to Marx?  How does he modify the labor theory of value that we learned about in Locke?
3.    What does Marx mean when he says “the worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces” (791.)
4.    What does Marx mean when he argues “labor is external to the laborer…the worker, therefore feels at ease only outside work, and during work he is outside himself.  He is at home when he is working and when he is working he is not at home.  His work, therefore, is coerced, forced labor.  It is not the satisfaction of a need but only a means to satisfy other needs.” (792)  Why is this the case?  What does the coercion?  Why might Marx see this as a problem?
5.    How are we alienated from 1) nature 2) ourselves 3) others 4) “species-existence”?
6.    What does Marx mean when he says we are fixated on a world of things rather than a world of persons?
7.    What might be necessary to overcome alienation?

Mill Discussion Qs 4/24

JS Mill in The Subjection of Women contends that “the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong . . . and one of the chief hindrances to human improvement” (p. 673).  Mill calls the subjection of women “the primitive state of slavery lasting on” (p. 678).  He argues that the entire subordination of women rests on theory, not experience or natural order.  The subordination that exists was not decided on after conclusions were made from experimentation, nor was there any forethought or deliberation on the merits of the system of subordination against women.  Even if experience or natural order are found to be the reason for the subjection of women Mill states that this is ridiculous because we know nothing about the nature of the sexes, therefore, we are unable to say that the current system of subjection is a symptom of the ‘natural order’.  Women have never been able to exist naturally and independently of their male ‘masters’.  They are until marriage property of their father and after marriage property of their husband.  Therefore, if women were to be allowed to exist free of subjection perhaps we would then learn something about human nature and the nature of the sexes.  Not only would the behavior of women change fundamentally if they were given freedom, Mill contends that the entire association and relationship between men and women would change drastically.  He points out that the psychological and medical disciplines are hardly prepared to provide any sort of starting point on the dynamics of the sexes.  Perhaps medical professionals had made progress in outlining differences between the sexes physiologically, but they know nothing about the implications of such physiological differences pertaining to psychology, let alone differences in plain psychology that may exist.
Since the justification of the subjection of women can not rest on experience or a so called natural order, Mill states that the system of subjection was created out of a physical fact being that women have less physical strength than men.  This physical fact was immediately converted to legal right.  Mill calls this ‘right founded on might’.  Mill mentions various ‘right founded on might’ systems that were overcome in recent history, yet oddly the subordination of women exists still.  Some said this is a result of the voluntary acceptance of women to live in such circumstances, yet Mill refutes this starting with how the subjection of women is different from other forms of oppression by force.  He notes that women are not forced a slave, but socialized into being a willing one.  Through education women are brought up to accept subjection, taught to submit and to yield control of their lives to men.  Women are taught to be selfless, living for their husbands and children (p. 681).  In view of the legal system, the political system, and the economic system women see no ability to rectify wrongs committed against them, even if women were smart enough to notice the injustice.  Mill’s point is that perhaps on the surface women seem to be willing accomplices to their demise beneath the surface lies a freedom loving being who yearns for the ability to take control of her own destiny.
Mill highlights marriage as a chief contributor to many problems associated with the subjection of women.  Firstly, women had little to no choice in who they married; this choice was reserved for the father.  Then, after the engagement women were to look after the house, have children, and serve the pleasure of their husband.  If her husband was poor, she suffered the consequences.  If her husband was rich she might benefit from his wealth, but let us not forget that in the end any wealth accrued belongs solely to the husband.  If a woman was abused or wanted a divorce this was almost never granted, so she would remain chained in marriage.  Even to death, after enduring a life of submission to her husband, if her husband died, most certainly any wealth he accrued would be given to another man, never to her.  Mill finds this unacceptable, charging that the only reason an institution like marriage is defined in such a way is do to a great fear within men at what women may be capable of if given the ability to breaks the chains of oppression.
Mill states that “custom affords no presumption” (p. 682) and that if we embrace competition, individualism, freedom, and opportunity then women ought to have the right to compete.  The corrupted system must be replaced with a “perfect equality” (p. 673).  For Mill, ‘perfect equality’ means equality of opportunity.  He advocates letting women compete in politics, in the economy, in the legal system.  He states many times over that if left to free market competition it would be found that women could do certain jobs better than men and that men could do certain jobs better than women.  He is not asking for women to have a right to any job, but for women to simply have a right to compete for any job.  He wants the rules to be fundamentally fair as well.  Women should be able to hold their own property and keep it to do with what they please.  Women should be able to divorce and engage in legal proceedings to the full extent of the law.  By empowering women Mill finds that women will be happier, that more sincere and prosperous marriage relationships might be possible, and that society as a whole will improve on every parameter.

Mill Discussion Qs for 4/24

ohn Stuart Mill rejects the notion that the female sex should be subordinate to the male sex in his book, The Subjection of Women.  He believes that legal equality among the sexes will improve the entire human race.  According to Mill, “…the legal subordination of one sex to the other – is wrong in itself…it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality…” (673). Mill was speaking out against a nearly universal custom of his era.  That being that women are subordinate to men.  Throughout the text Mill repeatedly compares marriage to slavery, using terms like “slave” and “master” to illustrate the relationship between man and wife.  Mill refutes the idea that women have generally consented to their place in life.  If they have it is most likely a result of their education, or lack thereof.  He denies any possibility of knowing for sure that natural differences between man and woman exists, this is because there was no way of studying that accurately during the 19th Century.
In Chapter 2, Mill states that women should have a right to property, just like men do.  It is wrong for a woman’s property to automatically become her husband’s.  Mill also believes, “The power of earning is essential to the dignity of a woman…” (701). Finally, women must be able to be free to divorce their husbands, something that was rarely granted at that time, except for in extreme cases.  In Chapter 3, Mill argues for the right of women to hold positions and occupations that were only meant for men at the time.  According to Mill, “many women, have proved themselves capable of everything, perhaps without a single exception, which is done by men, and of doing it successfully and creditably” (702).  In the final chapter, Mill discusses what good will come out of equality among the sexes.  Mill believes the benefits to be immense.  Most of all, women will receive an “…unspeakable gain in private happiness…” (730). Mill argues this equality will benefit all of society, men included, and the institution of marriage will be forever changed for the better.
I feel that the ideas presented by Mill in this text are congruent with the principles he proposes in On Liberty.  In On Liberty, Mill argues for individualism and freedom, as well as the ability for one to hold their own opinions in a society.  Women did not have access to these qualities when Mill wrote The Subjection of Women.  Mill is very much calling for individualism in this text as well, just this time it is for only women.  Women during this time were very much “domestic servants” to their husbands under the law (689).  According to Mill, “She can do no act whatever but by his permission, at least tacit” (690).  Women did not hold their own opinions when it came to societal and political issues; they shared the views of their husband.  In fact the general view among society was that “…women, as is often said, care nothing about politics except their personalities, it is supposed that the general good is naturally less interesting to women than to men” (685).  Mill felt women must be granted legal equality in order to come out from the shadows of their husbands as well as the entire male gender.  Once recognized as equals, women could embrace individualism, make their own choices, and form their own opinions.  The ideals Mill embraces in this text allow for powerful, independent, and strong-minded women much like Ms. Kenton from the film we watched.
One thing that strikes me as odd when reading this is Mill’s repeated use of the word “disability.”  At the beginning of Chapter 3, Mill states, “I believe that their disabilities elsewhere are only clung to in order to maintain their subordination in domestic life…” (701). He goes on to say, “…any reason beyond the mere existence of the fact was thought to be required to justify the disabilities of women…” (702). Mill never seems to explain what exactly theses “disabilities” are.  Throughout the text Mill provides examples of how and why women and men should be considered equal.  The only disadvantage women have to men is that of bodily strength.  And according to Mill, this is only a “merely physical” one (713).  Mill seems to attribute disabilities of the mind and knowledge to differences in education and upbringing.  Mill believes women were raised in such a way as to make them feel it was their duty to be subservient to men.
This is an interesting text to read in today’s day and age.  Reading something like this shows just how far society has come in the last two-hundred years.  We are pretty far removed from this time period.  The average person probably does not realize just how unequal men and women once were under the law.  We often think of issues like slavery when we think of inequality.  Mill makes the comparison between marriage and slavery in his time and attempts to prove they are more similar than one may think.  In reality, this may be a little exaggerated; as practice and law were not always the same (Mill acknowledges this).  But certainly, under the law women and slaves did not have the rights they deserve.
Discussion Questions
1) Would Mill be happy or unhappy with the advancement of women’s rights made throughout the 20th Century?  Is there more work to be done?
2) Women and men are now equal under the law (in the U.S.), which is what Mill argued for, is this enough or is more work required than what Mill called for in order for men and women to be truly equal?
3) Is one sex really any better suited than the other to stay home and take care of the family as it was stereotypically assumed during Mill’s life and even now?
4) Mill’s work has been both praised and criticized by feminists, did Mill go far enough in his calling for equality among men and women or was there more he could have done?

Mill Reading Qs for 4/24

The Subjection of Women

1.    Mill addresses several key arguments against women’s equality including 1) natural differences between men and women 2) the tradition of gender hierarchy 3) the lack of female achievement as a justification for/evidence of hierarchy 4) the law of the strongest. How does he respond to these arguments?
2.    How does Mill’s argument about challenging custom (674-5) fit with his arguments about Truth from On Liberty?
3.    What forms of power does Mill compare to gender hierarchy as arbitrary forms of power?  Why does he do this? (678-9)
4.    What is Mill’s critique of the use of the idea of nature as political justification?   (678 and 686)
5.    Mill considers the argument that women consent to their subordinate position.  What is his response? (680-1)  Is this consistent with his views in On Liberty?  Does it suggest that certain societal conditions must be met to consider someone a free and independent individual, capable of making choices for herself?
6.    What relationship does Mill see as central to women’s subordination?  How might this present a problem for someone who is committed to limited government?  (681-2)
7.    How has the subjection of women prevented the formation of a genuine meritocracy?  (683-4)  How is the idea of a meritocracy consistent with Mill’s views from On Liberty?  Are there any ways it might come into conflict with any of the ideas presented in that text?
8.    How does Mill reject the argument from experience that women as a whole lack merit? (684-5)  How is this consistent with the argument in On Liberty about our need to exercise our “thinking muscles”?
9.    Mill finally addresses one of the most enduring arguments against equality, that women need to be in the home serving as wives and mothers.  How does he respond to this argument that women must be coerced in order to accept these roles?
10.    How is marriage an impediment to women’s equality?  How is it an impediment to men’s advancement?
11.     In spite of Mill’s radical argument about marriage and the family, he suggests that most women will prefer to stay home and do their domestic duty.  Why do you think he argues this?  Is it a problem for his overall theory?  What role might the tyranny of custom be playing in this “choice?”
12.      How does Mill believe society has suffered from the subordination of women?
13.      Mill is writing in the Victorian era which had very specific views about men and women.  Do you see any contemporary ideas reflected in either his arguments or the arguments against which he is arguing?
14.    Which do you think contributes (or contributed) more to the subjection of women—political oppression or social tyranny?

Mill Discussion Qs 4/22

There are two overarching themes that are apparent in both John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty and the 1993 film The Remains of the Day.  One of these themes is the value of individualism in a person’s life.  Mill illustrates the differences between someone who acts on their own beliefs and someone whose actions depend on custom.  In the film, the sides of individuality on this personal level are represented in the personalities of Mr. Stevens and Ms. Kenton.  The other main theme is the role of individualism in greater society.  The majority of On Liberty is devoted to this topic.  In the film, this conflict is represented with Lord Darlington and the old order versus the American congressman Lewis.  Mill’s writing style is very deliberate, posing an argument, suggesting a likely rebuttal, and explaining his validity.  Mill uses this style throughout this work and remains an advocate of personal liberty.
Mill begins On Liberty with an outlook on the goal of the essay, which is to examine the benefits of individualism and freedom of opinion and its role in society.  Mill begins by arguing that political oppression is no longer the greatest threat to individuals, instead popular opinion and the “tyranny of the majority” has become the new oppressor (607).  He states that this social repression is even more dangerous than political oppression because it “enslaves the soul itself (608).”  Mill believes that the majority has no right to interfere in individuals’ lives, and that a person should retain absolute control over their mind and body (611).  He does make exceptions however, which become more apparent after having read The Racial Contract.  Mill withdraws the right to individual sovereignty from “backward states of society” as well as children (611).  Mill is careful to place a limit to the rights of the individual however, stating that only actions not harmful to others are a just expression of individuality.  In the next chapter, Mill discusses the benefits of the freedom of opinion and the harm that results from their censorship.  He argues that the silencing of opinions hurts society because by suppressing possibly correct ideas and assuming the infallibility of humanity.  Instead of assuming traditional ideas to be correct, we should constantly challenge the validity these and all ideas; only then can they be accepted (617).  Mill also suggests multiple examples in history where the stifling of opinion has led to disaster, such as the crucifixion of Christ and the death of Socrates (619).  Mill then describes the benefits of freedom of opinion.  Constant challenges create a “living truth,” while unchallenged facts become unimportant “dead dogma,” giving as an example the system of Christian morality (625).  He also argues that any truth is only partial, and that the real truth always lies somewhere between conflicting opinions, and that this situation is especially true in politics (631).
In his third chapter, Mill begins a discussion about individualism; why people should be able not just to have opinions, but act on them.  His first principle of individualism is its benefits to the self.  While it is practical to accept and follow customs during adolescence, a mature person should not rely on them to make decisions, as one “who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice (638).”  By simply following custom, we are not utilizing our human faculties to the fullest, and consequentially are not living our own lives.  Mill writes, “One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has character (639).”  Next Mill asserts that individuality is beneficial to greater society because it inspires progress.  He argues that by allowing geniuses and eccentric to “breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom,” society has been able to innovate and move forward over time (642).  Mill warns that suspension of this individual freedom could result in conformity and stagnation, giving China as an example (645).  His fourth chapter focuses on the limits that should be placed on authority in judging the individual.  Mill’s central belief is that one’s individuality is acceptable so long as it is not harmful to others (648).  There are exceptions where an individual’s actions may indirectly harm others, and the way society should respond to these actions.  Lastly, Mill argues that when society deems someone’s actions to be harmful, it often reacts unjustly.  Examples he provides include: Muslims’ banning of pork, Spanish law against married clergy members, the prohibition of alcohol, and polygamy among Mormons (654-58).  Mill does point out some limitations on individual rights, but overall remains faithful to personal liberty.
Many of the themes in Mill’s On Liberty are shared with those of The Remains of the Day.  The film depicts the emerging conflict between the rise of 20th century individualism and traditional society.  As previously mentioned, this conflict occurs in both Mills and the film on two levels; on a “micro” personal level as well as a “macro” social level.  The conflict on the larger social level is between Lord Darlington and the European diplomats, who represent the traditional aristocracy and ideals, and American congressman Lewis, who represents modern individualism and practicality.  This clash of belief is most apparent in the scene after the last dinner has been served and the guests are giving speeches.  This scene provides a good example of the way in which the old order perceives itself as infallible.  Lewis on the other hand, represents the belief that ideas should be challenged before they can be accepted as true.  Lewis challenges their “knowledge” of international diplomacy, calling them “amateurs.” By ignoring or suppressing opinion, the Europeans later received the consequences they had sought to avoid.
The conflict on the smaller personal level occurs between the traditional Mr. Stevens and the individualist Ms. Kenton.  Here the film illustrates the way in which these opposing characteristics influence each of their decisions.  Mr. Stevens often resembles the characterless “steam engine” that Mill suggests.  This is evident throughout of the film but especially with the death Mr. Stevens Sr., and the detached way that Stevens Jr. responds to it.  Ms. Kenton on the other hand represents individuality, fighting for her personal beliefs regardless of custom or societal norms.  The greatest example of this is her reaction when Darlington attempts to fire the German girls because they are Jewish. The individuality of her actions makes her more human, with a greater emotional quality.  In relation to the text, Mill would most likely identify more with Ms. Kenton and Mr. Lewis because of the individualism that is central to their characters.

Discussion Questions

1.  What is Mill’s opinion of the church in relation to his ideas about freedom of opinion and the right to challenge popular belief?
2.  How does Mill respond to the argument that anything an individual does will have an effect on another member of society?
3.  Why does Mill present China as an example of the consequences of the “despotism of custom?”
4.  Does Mill believe that persecution is still a substantial hindrance to freedom of opinion during the time in which he is writing?

Mill Reading Qs 4/23

1.    What are the various ways that an individual’s liberty might be limited (608)?  What is the difference between social tyranny and political oppression?
2.    How does Mill describe his goal in this essay?  (610)  What does he describe as the limits to government power?
3.    Mill has a simple principle that “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (611)  How does he derive this principle?
4.    After making this declaration of liberty, who does Mill exclude from his discussion and on what grounds? (611)  Mill worked for the Dutch East India Company that administered colonial control in India.  How does Mill’s employment make sense in light of his argument about liberty?
5.    What liberties does Mill believe are especially important?
6.    Why does Mill place so much emphasis on freedom of expression?  Why does he believe that even bad ideas are useful?  Why does he believe good ideas are helped by the expression of bad ones?  (For example, that even a devout Christian would want other religions to be allowed to exist and air their ideas)?
7.    What is fallibility and why is it so important to Mill?
8.    What are the advantages of diversity or pluralism?
9.    How is individuality a part of our “well-being”?
10.      How does liberty enhance us as individuals? What responsibilities does this bestow on us?  Consider:  “He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation.  He who chooses for himself, employs all his faculties.  He must use observation to see, reasoning judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision.” (638)
11.    What is genius according to Mill?  How is genius cultivated?  Why is it important?  (641-2)
12.    How does individuality serve social ends?  What responsibilities do individuals have?
13.    Mill distinguishes between behavior we find repugnant and wish to condemn socially and behavior we wish to use the force of law to prevent.  What is the difference and how to we respond to each set of behaviors?  (See 649)
14.    What is the harm principle?  What kinds of behaviors would it use the state to correct and which ones would it not?  What about self-harming behaviors?
15.    What harm is there in interfering with the actions of others?

Paper Conferences

Reminder:  We will not have regular class on Thursday so that you can have your individual conference on your paper.  If you did not sign up for a time slot please e-mail me immediately to schedule one.