Pages

Sunday, March 09, 2014

Cause for Federation

"Federalist", eventually known as "The Federalist Papers" were 85 separate articles published by 3 of the founding fathers of the United States of America.  All three authors in publishing their thoughts and reasons for a federation used the same pen name - Publius.

Federalist no. 5 and 6 were both written by Alexander Hamilton.  Here he discussed the context of the possibility of dissension between neighboring contiguous states - states that share the same border within a particular continent or land mass.  He does not specify this quality of the state in his discussion, but he mentions neighboring states in his closing argument in Federalist no 5.  And this same idea of contiguous neighboring states can be deduced from the difference between Federalist 2-5 and that of Federalist 5 and 6.  

He does not directly argue here for a federation.  Rather he provides arguments that: 1) states by nature have the tendency towards rivalry, competition or even aggression towards each other; and 2) there are particular reasons why a divisive attitude can exist between states in the international politics.

Thesis of Federalist no 5.

Federalist no. 5 provides Hamilton's human nature argument on the existence of the divisive trait of states. To paraphrase the main thought of Hamilton in this publication - States are rivalrous because it is governed by man, and man is rivalrous.

States go to war because of the whims of men who exercise within it.  To this he mentions the story of Pericles and Wolsey.  It also does not exist in one gender, Hamilton also identifies: Madame de Maintenon (due to personal bigotry), the Duchess of Marlborough (due to personal petulance), and Madame Pompadour (due to involvement with a political cabal).

Hamilton also writes here rebuttals against two existing political systems that are supposedly meant to manage such dissensions.
1) republics which supposedly is pacific (remind you of a previous political philosopher).
2) commerce - or the state being engaged in it - which can a) "soften the of manners men" (Hamilton cf: Penn State University, 2001)."  and b) "extinguish enflammable humors (Ibid.)" which can lead to war.  Here Hamilton points our that supposedly commerce can make citizens pacific by molding both a) habit or manners and b) emotions or humors.

Both arguments though are invalidated Hamilton by reminding the reader that Republics and Commerce engaged states are still under the government of men.  Men who by nature are rivalrous.  The founding father implies that these two institutions are not enough.

Thesis of Federalist no 6.

Here Hamilton enumerates the causes of dissensions among states and explains each.  He also either directly links federation as a solution, or occasionally is ambiguous on it.

  1. Territorial, proven on the nature of american colonial territories.  Hamilton directly points the importance of a federation to solve it.
  2. Commerce - proven based on human habit and american achievement.  Ambiguous with regards to federalism.
  3. Payment of public debt - proven based on american colonial experience and human nature.  Ambiguous.
  4. The effect of laws on existing private contracts - proven on american colonial experience.  Federal union suppurted as Hamilton mentions have been discussed in the previous Federalist.
***
For your task, I have intentionally excluded from this discussion certain facts.  Which if you are reading this will raise questions. Such as who are the other two?  What are american colonial expereince with regards to payment of public debt.  These are just samples.

Cross reference this discussion on the reading as preparation for the quiz.

Pls. also note all other parts of animadversion.

Study well. 

Friday, February 14, 2014

1BES2 PGC

My apologies class, but no section of the article will be passed over.  Pls. review all sections and prep for graded recitations come Tuesday.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Political Theory Syllabus

2Pol2 and 2POL3

My apologies for the very long delay.

Here's the class syllabus.Print or save in your digital gadget.

Pls download readings and read those in UNIT 2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185915890/Obe-Syllabus-Format-Rcastillo-Pol-Theory

Thursday, November 14, 2013

5 pt Metric

Update for Grade Metric

Originally, all my classes use this 10 pt metric.Grade Measurement
Pts. Metric for all Graded Activities and Student Outputs
1-2 = Very unprepared, very flawed output
3-4 = Unprepared, flawed output
5-6 = Average output with minor flaws/errors
7-8 = Good output
9-10 = Exceptional output
 
If we use 5 pts.  It will simply follow
 
Grade Measurement
Pts. Metric for all Graded Activities and Student Outputs
1 = Very unprepared, very flawed output
2 = Unprepared, flawed output
3 = Average output with minor flaws/errors
4 = Good output
5 = Exceptional output

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Parade of Philosophers 2POL2 and 2POL3

Rubric system for the presentation:

Group Organization/Preparation: 5 pts.

Individual Eloquence: 5 pts.
Individual Costume and Props: 5 pts.
Individual Research: 5 pts.
Individual Choice of Summarized Content: 10 pts

Parade of Paragons for 3POL1 and 3POL2

Rubric system for the presentation:

Group Organization/Preparation: 5 pts.
Individual Insight: 10 pts.
Individual Eloquence: 5 pts.
Individual Costume and Props: 5 pts.
Individual Research: 5 pts.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

1POL3 POL 201 Unlikely Finals Batch 2

Instructions:
  • Answer via the comments.  Begin with your name followed by PERMIT/PERMIT NUMBER (surname, first name: permit number).
  • Deadline of answers posting is at 5:15 p.m. October 12, 2013.
  • If a student is unable to access the net, a new set of questions will be available at 4:00 p.m. October 12, 2013.  New questions sets will get more difficult to discourage intended delays.  Those with no net access at this time have the time to further review.
  • Discuss intelligibly in 6-7 sentences. 
  • No evil genius.
  • Write in the jargon of the discipline. 
  • Follow detailed requirements in each item.
  • No copy pasted, verbatim from handout answers.  Provide YOUR OWN OBJECTIVE discussion.
Note: If I can read your minds as you guess during recitation and detect plagiarized works in your papers, don't you think it also applies here.


Points:
5 for manner of discussion, and 5  for content.

Range of points follows:
5 = impressive (no flaws, uncommon answer);  
4 = common answer with no flaws; 3 = most common / average answer with flaws;
2 = presence of several / essential flaws;
1 missed the point but showed knowledge of the topic;
0 = answer did not deal with the question/item/task (evil genius).

Items:




  1. If you were a political philosopher, narrate how you formulate a political philosophy.  Narrative must emphasis the essence of what makes political philosophy as different from political theory.
  2. As a political scientist, If you were going to study international relations between the Philippines and China, which perspective will you use? Justify your answer.  Justification must also include Political Institutions in the Philippines that will be involved in such a situation.

1POL2 POL 201 Unlikely Finals Batch 2

Instructions:
  • Answer via the comments.  Begin with your name followed by PERMIT/PERMIT NUMBER (surname, first name: permit number).
  • Deadline of answers posting is at 5:15 p.m. October 12, 2013.
  • If a student is unable to access the net, a new set of questions will be available at 4:00 p.m. October 12, 2013.  New questions sets will get more difficult to discourage intended delays.  Those with no net access at this time have the time to further review.
  • Discuss intelligibly in 6-7 sentences. 
  • No evil genius.
  • Write in the jargon of the discipline. 
  • Follow detailed requirements in each item.
  • No copy pasted, verbatim from handout answers.  Provide YOUR OWN OBJECTIVE discussion.
Note: If I can read your minds as you guess during recitation and detect plagiarized works in your papers, don't you think it also applies here.


Points:
5 for manner of discussion, and 5  for content.

Range of points follows:
5 = impressive (no flaws, uncommon answer);  
4 = common answer with no flaws; 3 = most common / average answer with flaws;
2 = presence of several / essential flaws;
1 missed the point but showed knowledge of the topic;
0 = answer did not deal with the question/item/task (evil genius).

Items:




  1. If you were a political philosopher, narrate how you formulate a political philosophy.  Narrative must emphasis the essence of what makes political philosophy as different from political theory.
  2. As a political scientist, If you were going to study international relations between the Philippines and China, which perspective will you use? Justify your answer.  Justification must also include Political Institutions in the Philippines that will be involved in such a situation.