Military Expenses

Throughout the semester we have read many articles dealing with political spectrums and ideas that reflect how the government operates and the ideals behind them. Many of the readings were exhaustively long and drawn out, and yet many of them were short and to the point. I think all the course material we covered was very in-depth and difficult to read, but were all understandable and unique in their own way.

The first two essays we read were Barrington Moore's, "The American Civil War: The Last Capitalist Revolution and Kenneth Dolbeare's "Capitalism and Democracy" which are two totally different ways of viewing capitalism and democracy, but ultimately have the same idea, of how Capitalism and Democracy go hand in hand, yet are not compatible in that the nation as a whole cannot be pleased or satisfied. I personally thought that Moore's essay was more summarized then Dolbeare's. Dolbeare went into much more detail and gave more of a background to American politics and democracy in the time period the articles were talking about, which helped me to understand the different ways capitalism and democracy were being compared. Moore's essay was very hard to understand. I found myself dazing as I was reading and trying to understand this essay. Dolbeare's essay was a little longer than I thought it should have been. Instead of giving all the background history of the time period, I think he should have focused more on Democracy and Capitalism together instead of spreading them out as well as together. Overall, I thought the two articles were very much similar, in that they had the same ideas and thoughts, but just presented in a different manner. Both Moore and Dolbeare view Democracy and Capitalism as sibling rivalries that no matter how much is different or similar, they are always compatible in love. I really don't think you can't have one without the other.

The next essay we read was Ayan Rand's reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." What really intrigued me about Rand's lecture were her philosophical theories of objective capitalism and how she argued her view in that manner; however her material and analogies where somewhat boring which turned me off to the material right away. I think that gives her an edge on her views and definitely gives her an argumentative case against the opposing views that she encounters. Overall, I thought Rand's lecture was somewhat boring, but kept my interest. Her aspects of a society and government were not interesting to me at all. The analogies and many different theories that were suggested really brought my mind to a standstill. One aspect that I did really like about the reading was how Rand's thinking covered a utopian society. The more people that get along with each other, the fewer problems you have, and the less government involvement you have to stop the problems. Her utopian thinking is what kept my interest in the article, which overlooking the philosophical analogies and theories, I enjoyed reading it.

I thought Chomsky's article "The