So what? After reading Bruce Alexander’s and Stefa Shaler’s essay “Addiction in Free Markets”, this would be the first reaction of many readers, as it was my reaction upon completion of the essay. Although Alexander and Shaler discussed a very important issue concerning ‘Addiction in Free Markets’, they do not provide sufficient resources or correlative research to prove their argument. Firstly, their thesis statement does not agree with many of the facts and statements that are being presented throughout the essay. Moreover, the essay sidetracks from what it is trying to prove to other aspects in life that are not related with the topic, and the transition of paragraphs is also not smooth. Also, the centuries of English and Native Canadians histories that are referred to extensively by Alexander and Shaler do not provide sufficient evidence to support their argument. Clearly they are maximizing the issue in a nutshell, but they are incoherently trying to get this point across, without much real meaning.
“Most people who cannot achieve a reasonable degree of psychological integration find that they must develop ‘substitute’ lifestyles in order to endure” (Alexander and Shaler 230), is the composition they are trying to prove throughout this essay. However, there are many instances throughout the essay in which the subject does not refer back to the main thesis or theory. Moreover, there are selections of phrases in the beginning paragraphs before the thesis is introduced without much real meaning. They are long-winded, unnecessary, and are not needed where presented. Although Alexander and Shaler provide a solid history and understanding of the issue, phrases such as “We’ve gone too far toward the free market extreme, and one o...
... middle of paper ...
...ion; more people are accustomed to what is going on today – rather than what was going on back in the 18th-19th centuries. It is not the dislocation that has portrayed this view upon numerous people – it is the changing time that has changed people, and the way that people think.
Ultimately, although the authors present an interesting argument, there are some flaws in their presentation and argument. The authors, often, fail to provide adequate references to validate their arguments. In addition, the arguments do not always lined up with the thesis statement. The authors tend to go off topic on several occasions. Lastly, the effects of colonialism arguments do not find base in concrete facts and statistics. Although “Addiction In Free Markets” does present knowledgeable information, it does not have the solidity to sway the reader’s perspective on the matter.
The American people are easily swayed by the abundance and/or cost of products on the market. As a direct result of this truth, America has fallen into pitfalls in the name of cost effectiveness and consumerism. Pollan gives the examples of the Alcoholic republic and the Republic of fat in which he compares and contrast the causes and results of American lifestyles and the affluence among other changes in our culture and history. Mainly, that Americans will never exhaust their greed and gluttony. Pollan uses ethos, pathos, and logos to successfully persuade his audience to see his point of view.
According to Leshner, drug addiction is a chronic brain disease that is expressed in the form of compulsive behaviors (Leshner, 2001). He believes that drug addiction is influence by both biological, and behavioral factors, and to solve this addiction problem we need to focus on these same factors. On the other hand, Neil Levy argues that addiction is not a brain disease rather it is a behavioral disorder embedded in social context (Levy, 2013). I believe, drug addiction is a recurring brain disease that can be healed when we alter and eliminate all the factors that are reinforcing drug addiction.
This is a credible article; it seems that it is researched thoroughly and thoughtfully. Overall this article highlights my topic fairly well, and did meet my expectations; the author’s conclusion ended strong and summarizes the article greatly. Still, this article is not much different than my other twelve articles with the exclusion of one. In this article and others not all sources have different points of view and only one has done that.
David has a strong thesis. It states that since the early 1800's our society has not changed
At a glance Imperialism is seen as a horrendous practice that many European nations practiced at the turn of the century. With Britain at the top and many other nations coming up behind them Imperialism seemed to be the way to go. But why would such a practice that involved exploiting the natives and harming both the land and people be so appealing to the public? The profits offered by Politicians and Officials hid the truth behind Imperialism, swaying the opinion in favor of money, goods, and a sense of moral duty. Imperialism was a great example of ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’, its promise of greatness for everyone involved outweighed the hardships many endured from it. The pros and cons of Imperialism
One of the major ways a colony can strengthen a nation is by providing it with another economic market. As a result of Industrialization, production was too high for consumer demand in Europe. Jules Ferry wrote an appeal to the French, urging colonization. In his appeal he wrote, "The European consumer-goods market is saturated: unless we declare modern society bankrupt and prepare, at the dawn of he twentieth century, for its liquidation by revolution (the consequences of which we can scarcely foresee), new consumer markets will have to be created in other parts of the world" (pg.259 source3). Meaning that unless there is another market to sell national products to, then employment could decline drastically within the nation and eventually cause revolution. Englishman, Joseph Chamberlain, once gave a speech to the Birmingham Relief Association in 1894. In this speech Chamberlain stated, "That in order that we may have more employment to give we must create more demand" (pg.259 source4). This proves that the idea of a foreign market as a means of economic power was widespread among Europeans at the time. Both an Englishman and a Frenchmen used the same argumen...
The world is changing at this very moment, as it has been for thousands of years. Life today is not the same as it was yesterday, nor will it be identical to tomorrow. Lives are changing, but this change does not affect merely the lives of individuals. Society as a whole is constantly undergoing modifications and other changes, both beneficially and unfavorably. People do not always readily accept this change. For ages, writers and great philosophers have been trying to discover the reasons that society makes an effort to resist this change, which comes through innovators and their new ideas. One piece of literature that attempts to solve the issue of societies resisting change is the essay “Individual Liberty and Public Control” by Bertrand Russell. He makes several points as to why societies resist change. Russell narrows the points down to three main reasons, being an “instinct of conventionality”, “feeling of insecurity”, and “vested interests” (Russell 1). These reasons can be applied to other works of literature, such as William Shakespeare’s drama The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, in which people resist changes and the opinions of various innovators. While it is true that the characters and events of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar manifest Russell’s reasons why society resists change, the underlying motive for each of these reasons in the Julius Caesar is the human nature’s selfish ambition and desire for personal gain.
A large part of this problem is that many Americans buy into the ploys of capitalism, sacrificing happiness for material gain. “Americans have voluntarily created, and voluntarily maintained, a society which increasingly frustrates and aggravates” them (8). Society’s uncontrolled development results in an artificial sense of scarcity which ensures “a steady flow of output” (78).
Society is constantly being changed as individuals want equality throughout their groups to others. Even though this has always been occurring in our country, Americans think back to the Progressive Era due to the periods enduring struggle to change the ways we viewed different groups of citizens. Furthermore, the Progressive Era reshaped America and still sets an impact today by fighting for individual freedom and equality and correcting the mistakes made during the Gilded Age.
People argue whether drug addiction is a disease or a choice. Today, I will be discussing this argument in hopes to have a better understanding as to why this topic is so controversial. Throughout my research, I easily found information on this topic and I am still not sure I have found any answers.
Addiction, Is it just an issue or is it one’s choice? Although no one chooses to walk around in their life and decides if he or she has or wants an addiction. An addiction is a “condition of being addicted to a particular substance” (Peele, 2016). One can be addicted to nicotine, drugs, alcohol, gambling, food, and even shopping if it has an impact on their everyday life. Consequently, some people with an addiction may reach a point in their life where it can turn harmful, therefore, people need to look for assistance. Even so, people still neglect to talk about addictions because people are ashamed, or in denial, and it is probably not one’s choice of topics that is brought up at your breakfast table, or you may never have confronted anyone before. Still, addiction is all around us, and most people today still do not understand or have misconceptions about addictions because addiction is a disease, and studies have indicated that addictions are a physical defect in the brain, thus, making it hard for some people to give up their addictions on their own.
Individuals began to increasingly celebrate their differences and become less amenable to compromising what makes them unique. This inclination represents a marked departure from previous times when predispositions were to "fit in."
In conclusion, the world is constantly changing, both for the good and the bad. Whether or not modernity is to blame is not something that can be easily understood. Modernity is seen by many different people in many different ways. Premodern societies have unmistakable transformed due to underlining circumstances forced out by modernity, leaving a new modern era of society for which people must explore and search for new meaning of society.
The effects of colonialism, whether positive or negative, are subjective wherever colonialism was practiced. Colonialism, a practice of one country exploiting another country for economic gain or for population expansion, affects both the colonizers and the colonized. There are times where the colonizers have profited and the colonized have suffered while there are times where neither the colonizers nor the colonized have profited. Because this is so, any benefits or losses occurring because of colonialism negate each other.
In the end, people in a colony will endure great suffering, even if they get their independence because the colony was once fully dependent on its mother country which makes it really hard for it to advance by itself. The scramble for colonies had a tremendous negative effect on the economic, social, and political structures of indigenous peoples. Therefore colonization must be ceased because it did not do any good but only made things worse. Its sole purpose is to seize a country’s natural resources, raw materials, and agricultural products.