Essay About Cass R. Sunstein Deviates And Societies Need Dissent
Essay, Pages 1 (3308 words)
Latest Update: October 3, 2021
“Why Societies Need Dissent” By Cass R. SunsteinEssay Preview: “Why Societies Need Dissent” By Cass R. SunsteinReport this essayThis book by Cass R. Sunstein deviates from much of the norm by advocating the necessity of dissent and prevailing views, arguing that they should be upheld and commended rather than struck down and criticized. However, this University of Chicago professor argues that dissent is something that should not be just dumbly applauded but be greatly heeded to as dissent often proves to have a beneficial effect as well. Sunstein goes on to say that organizations and nations would have better chances of prospering if they promote openness and allow dissent.
I agree. The problems with dissents are not the same as the problems with the laws. The difference is that people who criticize and agree with what they disagree with tend to be less likely to be silenced by the authorities. The problem here is that even if some people with opposing views were to be silenced by a mob of thugs (or even the police), they would still have no problem denouncing the mobsters. Similarly, the people who claim that social or political reform has to be about free speech also tend to be much less likely to say that free speech has to be about corruption or hate groups. They tend to be even less likely to say that free speech is about the right to free speech. The people who believe that, say, that some public schools should not have mandatory tests for certain students because it is anti-American are far too likely to say that these schools should not have mandatory tests in the first place. They are less likely to say that a person’s political views have to be about promoting democracy and free trade than are people who are willing to call for the abolishment of affirmative action, which is generally viewed as pro-business by many of the public and pro-corporate by some, and which is viewed more favorably by some. And if dissent, in the sense that dissent leads to less dissent and less democracy, is at least as valid as dissent, that does not necessarily mean that the government should restrict and ban dissent because of its harmful effects on individuals and communities.
The book argues, as well, that dissent tends to fall into two categories: those who argue for censorship for its effects or those who are not convinced that it leads to censure. The first is that people who support social or political reform often believe that they can get away with anything, both in the public eye and anywhere, if they can think outside of the box, that only the government wants to protect, and the second category is those who believe that the government can’t take or prevent dissent, based on the evidence and what their views are. I disagree. While dissent is a significant problem at the moment in most countries, in most markets it is likely to find a way in which a small group or group of people is able to create dissent and that it helps to help a small group grow and adapt to life outside the country. It serves not only to create more civil society but also to help the government and society adapt to what it sees as an increasing amount of unrest.
The book argues, as well, that dissent tends to fall into two categories: those who argue for censorship for its effects or those who are not convinced that it leads to censorship. The first is that people who support social or political reform often believe that they can get away with anything, both in the public eye and anywhere, if they can think outside of the box, that only the government wants to protect, and the second category is those who believe that the government can‚t take or prevent dissent, based on the evidence and what their views are. I disagree. While dissent is a significant problem at the moment in most countries, in most markets it is likely to find a way in which a small group or group of people is able to create dissent and that it helps to help a small group grow and adapt to life outside the country. It serves not only to create more civil society but also to help the government and society adapt to what it sees as an increasing amount of unrest.
The book argues, as well, that dissent tends to fall into two categories: those who argue for censorship for its effects or those who are not convinced that it leads to censorship. The first is that people who support social or political reform often believe that they can get away with anything, both in the public eye and anywhere, if they can think outside of the box, that only the government wants to protect, and the second category is those who believe that the government can‛t take or prevent dissent, based on the evidence and what their views are. I disagree. While dissent is a significant problem at the moment in most countries, in most markets it is likely to Find Reply Anonymous
12:33 PM
12:33 http://t.co/rRtRq3oQeO wrote:
This post needs to go out to all those who feel that censorship is one of the factors preventing them from taking part in the protests.
The book argues, as well, that dissent tends to fall into two categories: those who argue for censorship for its effects or those who are not convinced that it leads to censorship. The first is that people who support social or political reform often believe that they can get away with anything, both in the public eye and anywhere, if they can think outside of the box, that only the government wants to protect, and the second category is those who believe that the government can“t take or prevent dissent, based on the evidence and what their views are. I disagree. While dissent is a significant problem at the moment in most countries, in most markets it is likely to Find Reply Anonymous The book argues, as well, that dissent tends to fall into two categories: those who argue for censorship for its effects or those who are not convinced that it leads to censorship. The first is that people who support social or political reform often believe that they can get away with anything, both in the public eye and anywhere, if they can think outside of the box, that only the government wants to protect, and the second category is
The Book:
[1] (p)By P.I. Thompson, Jr., Editor, Inherent in Nature, Inc, http://www.inherentinnature.com/articles/0,,, September 17, 2008 (accessed September 14, 2010); Available from: http://www.inherentinnature.com/articles/0,,, September 17, 2008 (accessed September 14, 2010). The First Law of Thermodynamics. By Robert Shrucker; http://www.aracommunity.org/scholarly-papers/first-law-thermodynamics-by-rdshucker.pdf (accessed September 14, 2010). [2] (p)By P.I. Thompson, Jr., Editor, Inherent in Nature, Inc, www.inherentinnature.com, September 14, 2008 (accessed September 14, 2010).
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATIVE INSTRUMENTS H.L. POA
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa
ISBN: 978-903-9044714-9
Author(s) Andrew J. Schirion
Andrew Schirion is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
and an adjunct fellow at the Atlantic Council. Follow him on Twitter: @AndrewSchirion, @RobertShrucker, @joshgriak.
[3] (p)Christopher Griezl, Professor and chair of the Ethics Project at Stanford University, and an adjunct fellow of Columbia’s Center for Public Administration
[4] (p)David Steinman, PhD student and co-author of “Is the Internet Worth More Than the Book?”
[5] (p)Caroline A. Dworkin, research associate at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
[6] (p)Jonathan Spivey, The Conversation and the Internet; author of more than five books, including, “The Internet Needs to Change,” and “An Open Letter to the Communications Security Establishment,” and co-authors with Peter Tatchell, “The Internet’s Threat to Internet Freedom and Open Source Culture,”
[7] (p)Peter Tietz, co-founder of the Internet Center for Public Affairs (OPCOP), and co-author or co-editor of “The Internet’s Threat to Internet Freedom and Open Source Culture,” “My Big Lebensraum: The Impact of the Internet on Open Internet Politics,” “The Net Isn’t the Problem: From the Open Access to the Multivolution to Political Freedom and Democracy that Created The Internet,” “The Internet Needs to Change: From the Open Access to the Multivolution to Political Freedom and Democracy that Created The Internet,” www.observer.org/open/the-internet
[8] (p)David Cohen, professor and director of the Media Research Center at the Center for Media and Communications Policy, and at the William A. Kramer Middle School for Journalism in New York City: Media Research Institute and Policy Journal,
http://www.nationalarchives.org/bio/content/news/cio.
[9] Michael S. Cohen, professor at Columbia’s National Press Club and The Columbia Journalism Review: Media on a Moral Planet
Michael S. Cohen directs the Center for Media and Communications Policy, a policy magazine produced by the Media Research Center and the William A. Kramer Middle School for Journalism in New York City. S. Cohen is also an assistant professor of political science and director of Center for Media and Communications Policy. In December 2007, S. Cohen was honored during his keynote address at the United States Conference of Mayors by Yale University. Cohen and his fellow guests included the former U.S. Sen. Robert Baraha
When people oppose the government because they see it as an illegitimate tyrant, they will usually do everything they can to keep the government from running things. And they will not hesitate to do so. A lot of dissenters see the government in a negative
I agree. The problems with dissents are not the same as the problems with the laws. The difference is that people who criticize and agree with what they disagree with tend to be less likely to be silenced by the authorities. The problem here is that even if some people with opposing views were to be silenced by a mob of thugs (or even the police), they would still have no problem denouncing the mobsters. Similarly, the people who claim that social or political reform has to be about free speech also tend to be much less likely to say that free speech has to be about corruption or hate groups. They tend to be even less likely to say that free speech is about the right to free speech. The people who believe that, say, that some public schools should not have mandatory tests for certain students because it is anti-American are far too likely to say that these schools should not have mandatory tests in the first place. They are less likely to say that a person’s political views have to be about promoting democracy and free trade than are people who are willing to call for the abolishment of affirmative action, which is generally viewed as pro-business by many of the public and pro-corporate by some, and which is viewed more favorably by some. And if dissent, in the sense that dissent leads to less dissent and less democracy, is at least as valid as dissent, that does not necessarily mean that the government should restrict and ban dissent because of its harmful effects on individuals and communities.
The book argues, as well, that dissent tends to fall into two categories: those who argue for censorship for its effects or those who are not convinced that it leads to censure. The first is that people who support social or political reform often believe that they can get away with anything, both in the public eye and anywhere, if they can think outside of the box, that only the government wants to protect, and the second category is those who believe that the government can’t take or prevent dissent, based on the evidence and what their views are. I disagree. While dissent is a significant problem at the moment in most countries, in most markets it is likely to find a way in which a small group or group of people is able to create dissent and that it helps to help a small group grow and adapt to life outside the country. It serves not only to create more civil society but also to help the government and society adapt to what it sees as an increasing amount of unrest.
