Suburb

1. It seems that this new system of efficienty could not last because it was built upon a community that was still somewhat tightknit, with its members holding similar beliefs and partaking in similar activities. However, as these things changed and the suburb grew and the importance of the individual and self-reliance increased, the lack of authority which characterized the leadership meant that it was inevitable that it would run into problems as difference of opinion with no singular means of enforcement became the order of the day.
2. Economically, the activities of the church-goers, in all of their various clubs and events, even in the building of the church itself, were probably efficient in that not only were they run most likely on volunteer work, the jobs were also being done by those with a vested interest in the matters at hand, meaning that they were probably working hard at what was being done, all the while establishing good relationships with their fellow church members.

Suburb

1. The new leadership of Elmhurst replaced the old system of city rule by the 'elders" with a more efficient, more business-like city manager. Ehrenhalt suggests that the new efficiency worked fine in the short run, but fell apart in the long run. Why, do you think?
2. The fake community of the newly-created church nevertheless produced a lot of activity. Can you suggest some ways in which this is economically advantageous?

Ghetto

1. Ehrenhalt says this because the hardships the citizens underwent living in Bronzeville caused them to bond with one another and form a community as a measure of self-defense. It was from within this community, with all of its institutions, that the hope and the encouragement to dream for the future were developed and fostered.
2. Bronzeville institutions fostered community in many ways. They brought together their citizens and gave them a voice of their own. From their own newspaper, the Defender, to their mayoralty, to their various and assorted clubs, Bronzeville was able not only to give a sense of unity to its citizens, but also a sense of belonging and optimism, in spite of the difficult conditions in which life had placed them.
3. Business fostered hope for Bronzeville’s members because it demonstrated to them the success of those within their community who had risen above their struggles and followed their dreams in spite of hardship. It showed them that entrepreneurship had rewards, in particular because of the support offered by their fellow citizens who were loyal customers, which also helped make the business owners into community leaders. With business such as policy, it also had the added positive side effect of being a kind of diversion from the hardship of everyday life. The hope created by Bronzeville business was different from hope created by a TV show about the rich and famous because it was connected to real, tangible lives, with which the citizens of Bronzeville could relate.

Adverse Prosperity

1) The evidence he provided for his statement was the sense of posterity among its inhabitants. The attitude was that no matter how difficult things may be, the future was worth thinking about and planning for. Many inhabitants were farsighted, and they focused on events and ideas whose outlines were uncertain. In their hearts was the hope that through their hard work and determination they would break through the prejudices of segregated society.

2) Bronzeville institutions fostered community by building social institutions that were parallel to those of the white community. These institutions included a competition for the "mayor of Bronzeville," and even a full-fledged scouting program for black children. These and other institutions gave the people something to look forward to, a belief that there was a free society just beyond the horizon and hoped for its speedy arrival.

3) Business, legal and illegal, in Bronzeville was difficult, but those who prospered under the yoke were examples of "light shining in the darkness." They were rolemodels for many who sought to libe above the poverty line. Those who succeeded were regarded as moral heroes who won fairly against an unfair system. The ability to succeed amidst hardship provides hope that is different because people cannot relate to the rich and famous on a TV show, where the story is ficticious and romanticized for a captive (or envious) audience. In contrast, people who have a neighbor who owns and runs a successful business have a true and fascinating story. It is an example that is concrete and realistic; it can be grasped and followed as far as life allows them to. That is the difference between the hope created by real life as opposed to that fostered by a TV show.

Ghetto

1. Ehrenhalt says that, arguably, Bronzeville community “flourished because of adversity.” What evidence does he give to support that view?
2. How did Bronzeville institutions foster community?
3. How did business (legal and illegal) foster hope? In what way is this hope different from the hope created, say, by a TV show about the rich and the famous?

Swift on Community 2

(I don't know if I'm supposed to be blogging on this section or not......)
On pages 158-160, Swift talks about the difference between neutralist and perfectionist liberalism. He claims that the neutralist, unlike the perfectionist, will only allow for state intervention in areas where others are being harmed by individuals' free choices, but not because any kinds of actions are actually 'intrinsically evil.' He brings up the case of pornography, for example, saying that it could be banned by the state in the case of it harming women, but not due to the evils it inflicts on those who use it. However, this viewpoint seems problematic, because it does not give any support for how the harm arises if there is nothing inherently wrong with pornography. If it is freely entered into by both the women and those purchasing the materials, then how can one say that it harms women in any way without bringing in some kind of objective sexual morality, which would then apply to both sides? It seems that they are missing the connection between what is bad and what is harmful, perhaps trying to say that what is harmful is not inherently so, but simply so for that individual or group of individuals. However, it still seems that harmfulness must be connected to evil in some way, meaning that the lines will eventually be blurred between the state taking action on moral grounds and it taking action on the grounds of 'justice' for its citizens.

Swift on Communities

1.From reading Tawney, Nisbet, and Ehrenhalt, the conservative-traditionalist-communitarians are concerned with the parameters which allow people to operate in a moral way. They understand the flawed nature of a person, and aim to constrain people to do what is good. They do this through the community/society. In contrast, to a liberal who prioritizes the individual choice.
2.“Liberals have no problem believing that people should be responsible for the outcomes that result from their own free choice.” We have a right to free choice, and as such a duty is imposed on us to allow others free choice. Every time a right is claimed, a duty is imposed. Liberals are born with minimal basic rights, and duties.
3.On these pages, it is demonstrated the similarities between a liberal and libertarian. The priority on free choice, and the freedom from relative/societal imposed values.
4.While a conservative-traditionalist-communitarians would emphasize the importance of a society/community and tradition, they would not necessarily encourage a relativist point of view. Nor would the necessarily believe that it is the role of the state to maintain said values. A liberal would say that the role of the state in this case is to make sure that the individual has a choice in what to believe and accept. An emphasis on the individual rather than the community.
5.A democratic society by nature is to represent the view of a majority, the existence of a majority requires a minority. Therefore, it is not possible that everyone will share every value.