State VS Society - In Magazine by Brittany Bell

STATE V.S. SOCIETY

“F**K THE GOV”

WHY WE SUCK

Philosophers Speak Out pg. 11

date

Issue

2014-07 #32

Is Society Doomed? pg. 12

Editor-in-chief

BRITTANY BELL

Conquering philosophy and its critics, one page at a time

2 3 4 8 9 10 11 13

EDITORIAL NEWS ARTICLES Q&A FILM REVIEW COMIC DEBATE Type to enter text

END

EDITORIAL

STATE VS SOCIETY P

olitics and society has existed since hu-

mans came to be. They are a main subject of study for many philosophers, such as Plato and Thomas Hobbes, and leaders like Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Collectively, the two have helped us evolve and improve, from the introduction of laws to social movements changing these very laws. This issue of Inn magazine celebrates and criticizes - the battle between state and society and the philosophy behind it. It is obvious that there is no such thing as the perfect society or those who govern it. Throughout history, we have seen the fall of many civilizations due to their state and the society under it. From the toodemocratic Athens in 440 BCE, to Russia’s disastrous communism movement in the 1920s - there has always been conflict in state and society, and always will be. North Americans have began to realize the many downsides in capitalism, and rebel, chaos erupting all around the world. Many are quick to blame the government for society’s failures, others blame ourselves for allowing and triggering these injustices. The unsolvable question: is it them or is it us? Philosophers like Thoreau insist “that government is best which governs least”, and that society would be more capable without such heavy government interference. Therefore, it is our moral obligation to rebel against government decisions that go against our best interests or opinion. For Thoreau, that meant not paying taxes to avoid enabling actions he did not support. Gandhi opted for a

more peaceful protest, relying more on numbers and education to oppose the government than violent or extreme measures. Meanwhile, Mandela fulfilled his obligation by engaging in armed terrorist attacks against the government. Each of these leaders were jailed and beaten, yet remained dedicated to their beliefs and to their society. Civil disobedience, no matter what the extreme, was a duty as not protesting turned a blind eye towards injustice and encouraged it. Today we are quick to talk and comment on issues that bother us, relying on our words as a form of protest. Is our reluctancy to protest without the protection of a computer screen the reason for society’s failures, have we become too reserved and scared to stand up for ourselves and make a change? Thomas Hobbes and Plato may argue that we rebel too much. Plato, who lived under Athens’ extreme democracy, encourages a more fascist approach of governing as many humans ignorantly vote, easily swayed by strong public speakers. Under Plato’s Republic, the guardians would have unlimited power over soldiers and workers, ensured to maximize social harmony and avoid conflict. Similarly, Hobbes agree that the only reason for human’s prevalence is the government, and that it’s necessary to obey and not question the government to avoid return to society’s perilous, war-ruled state of nature. This issue explores all sides of the State VS Society battle, against the government and against society. It features a philosophic outlook on civil disobedience and when its warranted, and an overview of the many types of active societies proposed by philosophers. We hope to enlighten you on State and Society in a philosophical matter, leaving you to address and answer the question on who is to blame...if anyone.

ARE WE FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE?

WORLD NEWS

WORLDWIDE WAR ISRAEL-GAZA CONFLICT

Israel and Palestine have always had a rocky relationship...but this time it has gone too far. Uncovered by news stations and newspapers, what’s really going on in Gaza and why? • Outrage began when 3 Israeli students were kidnapped and murdered in the west bank. Israel assumed it was committed by Hamas Operatives • Israel fired air rockers in Hamas in defense; Palestinians retaliated; 6 Israelis killed a young Palestinian, his cousin beaten by police for “revenge” • On July 8, Hamas launched rockets towards Israel, poorly guided and not causing many casualties. First admitted attack since 2012. • Angered, Israel intensifies, launching more strikes as an effort to make them “pay a heavy price”. • On July 15, Israel accepts Egypt’s ceasefire proposal. Hamas rejects. • Israel continues bombardment, launching a ground operation. Over 160 Palestinians are killed, including militants and children.

• DEATH TOLL: 572 Palestinians dead; over 3,350 injured... 27 Israelis dead.

QATAR WORLD CUP - SLAVERY Qatar is already planning and building infrastructure for the 2022 World Cup. Like all countries hosting, the World Cup is a huge event that requires a lot of work...however, in Qatar’s case, that work is done by workers who are not receiving their (little) pay. According to Nepalesean men, their risky employment is burdened by disgusting living conditions with their wages missing for over a year and not being sent back home. They were abandonned by their employer, who they need permission from to quit their jobs and leave the country. Although the Qatar police was informed of this months ago, there are still many trapped in Qatar, unpaid and unable to go back home. This case is not uncommon in Qatar’s construction industry, but it comes as a surpise for the migrant workers who just expect their proper pay and a ticket to home. 882 indian immigrants working in Qatar (unable to come home) have died, from probable starvation or exhaustian, yet it’s excused as Sudden Death Syndrome. Their families are left shattered and devestated, often times unable to afford rent and uncompensated for by Qatar. Click here for deeper insight

FEATURE ARTICLE

A PERFECT SOCIETY ACHIEVING THE IMPOSSIBLE

hat is the ideal society, and more

importantly, is it achievable? In a world with such diverse structures of societies and utopias, how do we determine the best one for all? These are unsolved questions various philosophers and leaders have battled with for centuries, implementing experiments, failing and succeeding with no absolute resolution. However, this paper will attempt to determine the ideal society by exploring Thomas More’s Utopia (perfect society), communism and John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, highlighting their benefits and consequences in demonstration. Thomas More wrote his Utopia theory when the Christian church was in midst of a reformation crisis, encouraging serious reflection on the nature of sixteenth-century European society. Utopia’s main focus is on how society would be better off without the greed and temptation of money and private properties, working and fighting for each other than against each other. Unlike the European Society of his time, education is available for all Utopians and is a passion for most, studying happiness, the afterlife and the differences between authentic and artificial pleasure. Along with education, every Utopian has the right to proper health care and the freedom to be euthanized. Slavery is accepted as a means of punishment for those who break the rules of Utopia, unbiased on their skin colour, age or gender. Their Ruler is elected by their virtues, and may be overthrown if ruling improperly. Overall, Utopian society are enlightened, honest and equal, with the right to proper health care and education. This may seem like an ideal society, however it is criticized for preventing human expression, as everyone dresses identically with the same houses and same work hours. Atheists and critics of the social order are at risk of

being executed, making it difficult for Utopia to expand and evolve if the population isn’t able to express concerns or lack religion. The censorship and somberness of the Utopian society may cause Utopians to feel depressed and rebel, a consequence of the restriction on individualism. This theory provides an alternate reality in contrast to the faults and social classism of sixteenthcentury Europe, allowing everyone the right to education and health care but censoring and denying individualism, ultimately encouraging totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Thomas More’s Utopia may have been an ideal society in opposition to sixteenth-century Europe, but today freedom of expression has become one of the most important things to society, making it too problematic to execute. Communism is a theory inspired by Karl Marx encouraging a total equal and democratic society where all property is publicly owned and everyone works for fair pay. Originally, Karl Marx intended his theory to be a prediction of natural progressions, until leaders like Vladimir Lenin integrated their own tactics into marxism, revolutionizing the theory into communism. The Soviet Union is the biggest example of a failed communist state, as leaders Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin were dedicated to force the development rapidly at any cost. Lenin lead the October Revolution in 1917, elected afterwards. Subsequently, he created the Soviet Union in 1917, the Russian Empire becoming a socialist state with equality of ownership. Lenin went to tragic measures in order to achieve his goals, over seven million Russians dying in the process, due to war, exhaustion from overwhelming sixteen-hour work days and famine. According to Lenin, "You cannot make a revolution in white gloves" but the costs far outweighed the benefits in his revolution, which was more of a mass genocide than anything.... [continued on page 5]

[CONTINUATION OF PG. 4]

Josef Stalin replaced Lenin after his death in 1924, and was even harsher in his great project of socialism. Under Stalin’s ruling, everyone lived in fear and was susceptible to one of his many purges, famine caused by his Collectivization or disease. Living conditions decreased dramatically and the population was severely oppressed and depressed, Stalin viewing his people as disposable pawns with over twenty million deaths under his regime. Although communism is an equal, democratic and ideal society on paper, The Soviet Union is proof of how devastating communism becomes once corrupted, the ideal society all equally living in fear, famine and blood. John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness is a contemporary Utopianism of the twentieth century, transforming the discussion of an ideal society to an idea of society by agreement of its members. Justice as Fairness uses both Kantian and Utilitarian philosophy, developing a social contract through his Original Position thought experiment. In the Original Position, Rawls uses the Veil Of Ignorance as his basis to understanding what society would agree is ideal if they had no knowledge of what class they’d be assigned to. Therefore, people agree on principles by maximizing possible minimum benefits one could receive, like accessible health care and education to individual freedom. The society begins at Liberty Principle, maximizing rights of all citizens and leads to Difference Principle, where the ideal society allows equal opportunity to increase their place in society and wealth, guaranteeing no one is obtusely rich or poor. Although such social contract and agreement would allow everyone maximized rights, it is too abstract to be practiced without a reform and necessary state involvement. The theory also doesn’t describe the rules of the government that would regime, or how people would be placed in society. Similar

5 to communism, in order for Justice as Fairness Utopianism to work, everyone would need to want it and believe in it, work towards making it a reality. John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness theorizes a compelling society, however it lacks in realism and isn’t thoroughly explained, making it difficult to practice. After exploring Thomas More’s Utopia, Communism and John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, it’s evident that every theory has its flaws and requires an extreme amount of work and compliance in order to be applied. Thomas More’s Utopia offers extreme equal rights but lacks individual expressionism, while communism is ideal on paper yet easily corrupted and John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness is admirable, just too vague and easily open for misinterpretation. Although each has their flaws, it’s conclusive that John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness is the ideal society for the twentyfirst century, as it helps put ideal principles in perspective and allows the start of peace through agreement. In order to execute this contemporary utopianism, society needs to be able to come together and the state needs to intervene to ensure that no one is too poor or too rich. It promotes a society based on principle and agreement which gives a sense of equality knowing that society’s ideals was decided by the members of it. In order for society to become ideal without fear of poverty, John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness is necessary to implement, as communism and Thomas More’s Utopia fail in practice. I invite you to take a stand with me, for society to rise and overcome ourselves and any ill will of the State. It’s time to make a difference and become a tolerant, accepting society with equal rights and opportunity to grow, an overdue process that we NEED to begin, dedicate ourselves into until it is too late. As a city, nation and world we will persevere, inspire and win the war that prevents us from being happy and living comfortably. Every action, no matter how big or small, makes a difference. It’s starts with you and ends with US.

IN THEORY...

THE JUST WAR Can war ever be justified? The Just War Theory by St. Thomas Aquinas attempts to answer that by offering conduct and cause principles. In order to be defined as a war, it must involve organized violence and bodies of combatants. In order to be justified as war is a different manner... There are several types of wars that play a big role on whether the war is reasonable or foul. Aggressive and Defensive wars occur when one country attacks the other and the other country attacked defends. This term only applies to the start of the war, but it’s possible to fight a defensive war years after it occurs. Interventions are when you enter a war on behalf of an Ali, like when NATO attacked Serbia in ’99. Pre-emptive wars are very common but misrepresented, as the country needs to have big reason to suspect possible attack before taking on the role of aggressor and attacking first. Preventive wars don’t require prior knowledge on knowing you may be attacked, but they are used to show force and catch opponent off guard, ultimately scaring them away. Civil wars are common in Ukraine and Spain, where people from the same nation fight each other to violently reform a government. Meanwhile, Insurgency wars operate in small elusive groups to fight foreign occupation. The last type of war is limited and total war, limited being the opposite of a total war where the entire society fights in war. Now that we’ve discussed types of wars, we will outline what they need to have in order to be justified, according to Jus ad Bellum (reasons of war) and Jus in Bello (conduct in war). Jus ad Bellum Reasons to go to War • If not followed, there is not a Just War • Just Cause: good reason, like defending yourself or intervening to protect others • Right Intention: fighting for justice of your cause, not for greed or gain • Proper Authority: only political entities can go to war, or it’s criminal violence. Must have legit reason + Public awareness • Last Resort: tried to perverse peace, but driven to war by enemy • Probability of Success: War should be winnable, if not, it’s pointless violence • Proportionality: overall harm caused by war must not be more than good hoped to achieve

Jus IN BellO conduct in war • If not followed, there is not a Just War • Following Rules: obeys norms of international war conduct • Discrimination between Combatants & Civilians: only combatants may be harmed intentionally; every precaution should be taken to minimize collateral harm to non-combatants • Proportionality: excessive force should not be used, only force necessary to achieve victory • Responsibility: war is suspension of normal ethical rules; only proper violence is to be used and if rules aren’t followed they are committing murder; combatants must take responsibility for their actions and ensure all actions are with pursuit of cause • No Inherently Immoral Acts: violence like genocide/ethnic cleansing, torture or mass rape is unjust and inexcusable; war crimes that individuals are held accountable for

IN ACTION...

A JUST WAR? ANALYZING THE ETHICS IN BUSH’S POLITICAL OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM WAR

ccording to President Bush, Operation

Iraqi Freedom was a just war as it was for a positive cause and intention, fought by proper authority with a high probability of success. President Bush believes that Saddam Hussein is a huge threat and atrocity not only to his people, but to America and the world. Therefore, it is necessary to intervene in order to liberate and disarm the people of Iraq before Iraq attacks and hurts the citizens of America. In the President’s perspective, the conflict has arrived and the U.S. needs to apply decisive force immediately so the U.S. does not become a war zone and victims of Iraq’s mass murder weapons. Not only is the war entered with positive intentions, but it will be conducted properly with the correct authorities, guaranteeing success. Bush maintains that the army will not use excessive or violent force against innocent citizens of Iraq, and that they will respect not only these citizens but the religions and faiths that they follow. The only participants in this war will be the U.S. military with over 35 countries and their bases backing, involving solely the proper authority which differentiates the war from criminal violence. The President issued a PSA regarding the war to inform America’s citizens, making the war public and not hidden. Overall, their is a high probability of success with the proper authorities, conduct and intentions which is why Operation Iraqi Freedom is a just war to President Bush. While President Bush assures that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a just war in his Public Service Announcement, when carried out the war remained unjust and ultimately a failure. In President Bush’s release statement on entering the war, he

states that the U.S. maintains a positive cause, proper conduct and with a high probability of success. It assures its citizens that Iraq poses a huge threat against the world, and that the only way to prevent that is to intervene and disarm Iraq while liberating its citizens. At first glance, Operation Iraqi Freedom is definitely a just war, but when we investigate further, we find that it’s anything but. In reality, Operation Iraqi Freedom was unnecessary, unprovoked, caused harm against innocent Iraqis and worsened Iraq’s economy. In order to engage in a preemptive war, international law states that you need to know that you are going to be attacked. Despite Bush’s concerns over Iraq, the Security Council felt that Iraq was not a sufficient threat, indicating that the war is preventative for U.S. to maintain power, not safety, and therefore they did not have a justified reason to arrack Iraq. During the operation, many innocent Iraqis were killed (particularly on March 23rd), despite the guarantees that they would be safe, making the conduct of the war hypocritical and harmful. Not only did the army engage in misconduct of the preventative war, but the intervention ultimately worsened Iraq’s economy and bank system, destroying infrastructure. Operation Iraqi Freedom was an unjust war as it did more harm than good, as its only reliable and maintained purpose was the U.S. to maintaining its power.

For a deeper analysis, checkout “Operation Iraqi Freedom - An Unjust War” by Joseph McInnis

Q&A PRESENTS... WHEN IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE JUSTIFIED, IF EVER? OUR PHILOSOPHERS OFFER THEIR EXPERTISE

REBEL WITH(OUT) A CAUSE? 8

Dear Philosophers, “Complete civil disobedience is Recently I’ve been invited to a protest rebellion without violence...civil against the northern gateway pipeline in British Columbia. Despite our thousands resister simply ignores the of speeches and letters to our governauthority of the State. He never ment, they have ignored our pleas and reuses force and never resists force fused to listen to the majority and put forth the decisions of the elitists. I want when it is used against him.” nothing more than to participate in this - Gandhi protest, however, there are many threats of violent and unlawful demonstrations to occur at this protest. I understand the I do not suggest going to a violent values and history in civil disobedience, but don’t know if it will be effective or protest as that imitates the state. However, I suggest not paying your taxes just destructive. which will “not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.”

Please Help! Adam Dang

“Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity”. ONLY support peaceful protests.

- M.L.K

- Thoreau

“When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw”. If this proposal interferes greatly in your life and spirit, you must support the protest...even if violent. Gandhi rejects reality.

- Mandela

IN’S MOVIE OF THE YEAR:

OMAR

Omar tells the story of three young Palestine boys, Omar, Amjad and Tarek rebelling against Israel while battling for Tarek’s sister, Nadia’s, love. Their journey is portrayed in the main titlecharacter’s perspective, Omar, a loyal young man caught in cross-wires between his friends, the Israeli forces they attempted to murder and the love of his life, Nadia. Throughout Omar, the philosophical themes of political and personal betrayal, mankind and truth are explored and broken as their friendships become corrupted by the Palestine-Israeli war. It all begins with Omar climbing up The Israeli West Bank Barrier to re-enter Israel: a key object in the film. It represents the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, highlighting Omar’s struggle between his political and personal betrayals that dominates his life. The West Bank Barrier creates two separate, relative realities: his personal life with Nadia and his friends, and his political duties in Israel. It is similar to Plato’s Cave Allegory: Palestine and Israel are forced to experience different realities that are less real to the other, their perceptions of truth limited to their country’s propaganda models. Throughout the film, Omar is actively crossing between the walls by rope, unwilling to adapt to one reality at risk by the other, desperately trying to unify the two. However, Omar ultimately chooses his political Israel reality over the other, his trips increasingly infrequent. Near the end of the film, Omar attempts to cross the wall as a final visit to his abandoned personal life in Palestine, and is unable to climb over it without aid. Omar uses the wall to show not only the political conflict of the two countries, but the philosophical conflict of balancing, and betraying, two separate yet relative realities with different truths. The skewed concept of humanism manifests the three young men’s quest for the freedom of Palestine, initiated by Tarek. The young men rebel against Israeli forces by shooting one of their

soldiers, an outcome of frustration and boredom that Tarek perceives to be a murder for mankind. The majority of the film focuses on the flaws of mankind and the world we live in today, however the few humanist moments in the film are touching and revealing. One of these moments is when Rami and Omar chuckle and bond over the persistent phone calls from the Rami’s wife, a glimpse of how in midst of their manipulation and opposition, the two can bond and enjoy each other’s company, even if for just one minute. Omar reveals how humanism is twisted to comfort ourselves and others, and that political and religious differences aside, we all can share and relate to the same simple human moments. Amidst the falls of friendships and death of others, the biggest victim of belief and betrayal is the doomed relationship between Omar and Nadia. Their relationship turns from promises of a honeymoon in paris to accusations of working with the enemy, until it is finally destroyed when Amjad tells Omar something about Nadia that haunts their lives forever. Heartbroken yet still desperately in love with Nadia, Omar believes in his friend and cuts off contact with them, but years later learns that Amjad lied. However, the biggest betrayal is not Amjad's deceit, but how the lovers believed others’ truths at face value, allowing it to corrupt their faith and feelings for each other. This romantic tragedy proves how deceptive and impactful one’s perspective of others’ statements can be, especially when it’s accepted without investigation. Overall, Omar is an impactful psychological thriller that explores the philosophical concepts of separate realities, determinism, humanism and weltanschauung - highlighting their haunting consequences. Filmed in the perspective of Omar, the viewer endures a heart wrenching and shocking journey as they too are deceived and manipulated, their judgement becoming their own worst enemy.

THE IDEAL SOCIETY

10 A VISUAL EXPLORATION

INSIGHT...

F*CK THE GOVERNMENT

WHEN PHILOSOPHERS DISCUSS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THEORIES, ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS IS, SIMPLY PUT, F*CK THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IDEOLOGY HAS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES, AND WE’VE LISTED THE MAIN MOVEMENTS, THEIR REASONS & PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT

Anonymous:

We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not for-‐

get. Expect us; Interna&onal group of hackers who launch a3acks on government and relig-‐ ious websites to oppose internet censorship and control. Some of their biggest endeavors involve shu<ng down the U.S.A Government's websites for considered censorship of the popular site, Megaupload. This group has no leader but carry extreme inﬂuence with only 3 rules: do not disclose one’s iden&ty, talk about the group or a3ack media.

WikiLeaks: “WikiLeaks exposed the most dangerous lies of all...told to us by elected government” -‐ Khan; non-‐proﬁt organiza&on that publishes secret documents and leaks with the help of anonymous sources. Their goal is to reveal important news and informa-‐ &on hidden from the public, a movement with complex legality that has resulted in being censored by the U.S.A and a constant change of website hosts. They have received mostly praise for their work, but their founder and sources have faced many consequences from their oﬀending countries.

Henry Thoreau: That government is best which governs not at all; born in 1817, Thoreau lived a life of civil-‐disobedience, opposing slavery and Mexican-‐American war by refusing to pay his taxes and hiding escaped slaves in his home. Like many of us, Thoreau believed in the necessity of a government, but an extremely more just and honest one that conﬁded in society. He insisted it is society’s duty to protest against their govern-‐ ment and certainly devoted his life to it, making him one of our most inﬂuen&al philoso-‐ phers.

William Godwin: PoliCcs and modes of government will educate and infect us all. They poison our minds, before we can resist...; in 1793, Godwin founded the idea of anarchism, viewing the government as a self-‐corrup&ng and oppressive force to so-‐ ciety. Due to his controversial and inﬂuen&al theories, he was forced to hide for decades -‐ reputa&on tarnished by conserva&ves for his candid autobiography. He was ahed of his &me, warning people that the government will only con&nue to grow worse and worse...

YOU (letter to editor): How can you argue for the government when they are the cause of social injusCce and innocent children dying in war worldwide?; Ever since I was a teen and witnessed my friends being arrested just for the colour of the skin, I’m convinced that the whole government and its authority, policemen to lawyers to President are all corrupted and don’t care who they hurt or how many.. -‐ Andrea Zuckerman, USA

INSIGHT...

SOCIETY SUCKS

IN CONTRAST, MANY PHILOSOPHERS PUT THE BLAME ON SOCIETY FOR BEING SELF-DESTRUCTIVE AND ANIMALISTIC IN NATURE. READ BELOW FOR THE MOVEMENTS, THEIR REASON AND THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT

Neo-Nazism: “Hitler was right” ; Hateful organiza&ons like the Na&onal Socialist Movement in the UK are prime examples as to why we, as a society, suck. From their per-‐ spec&ve, society is insane for le<ng non-‐whites have the same rights as us and advoca&ng mixed-‐race couples. However from everybody else’s perspec&ve, these many hate groups worldwide are proof to why we are to blame for the con&nuing inequali&es in the world. On a less extreme measure, modern society hasn’t fully become equal, just less racist and sexist.

Benito Mussolini: Believe! Obey! Fight! ; the inventor of fascism states that per-‐ sonal endeavors and happiness is unimportant in comparison to the state. Individualism causes desire and greed, which leads to disorder and corrup&on in society. Instead of focus-‐ ing on personal liber&es, society needs to dedicate themselves to the state, ensuring har-‐ mony and a greater quality of life. Do as your told, obey and don’t think too hard or ques-‐ &on, as that only leads to stress and frustra&on. It’s important to note that fascism brought stability in Italy during the 1920s crisis, but short lived.

Thomas Hobbes: The condiCon of man... is a condiCon of war of everyone against everyone; According to Hobbes, born 1588, the state of nature without govern-‐ ment caused a war against all. Life was “solitary, nasty, bru&sh, and short” as everyone could do what they willed without consequences, erup&ng chaos amongst society. The only reason humans prevailed is when they organized Governments to monitor and con-‐ trol society, therefore we must obey the government to avoid perilous state of nature...with less opposi&on.

YOU (letter to editor): Society is self-‐oppressive, unproducCve and ulC-‐ mately the cause for our falls; I must admit that I was quick to blame the government for my and the world’s issues as well, it was the more obvious and easiest choice. I con&n-‐ ued to do this un&l I ﬁnally took a look in the mirror and realized that we have ALLOWED and SUPPORTED the government in all its misconduct, whether by ignorance or on pur-‐ pose. Due to our oblivion and overwhelming self-‐interest, our world has gone up in ﬂames...and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. -‐ Brandon Walsh, President of California University

IN...

CONCLUSION This issue of In Magazine, State VS Society, was intended to enlighten and open our readers’ perspective and understanding of the conflict between government and society, outlining the ideal utopias and concept of a ‘just’ war. Who is to blame? Society or the government? It may be a mix of both. Ideally, we are able to stand up for what we believe in and oppose any government movements that contradict our morals... many of us either aren’t doing so or the government isn’t listening. That’s for you to decide. As for the best society, it seems impossible to achieve and agree on one that is right for us. However, centuries of experimentation in these societies has always left society wanting more and government not doing enough. Perhaps we will never reach the harmonious state of society, unless we work together instead of for ourselves. Check out incent.com for more articles, videos and editorials. Our online, PDF subscription begins at 17.99/year and includes VIP access to HD and unreleased content. Thank you, In Magazine.

BRUISE.COM PHILOSOPHY; WAR; METAPHYSICS; BEAUTY; ZEN

NEVER MISS A BEAT! ONLINE SUB STARTS @ 17.99/YEAR 15% OFF CODE: JXZ492P