The short of it

After Thursday's lecture on exploitation, we delved into the topic further during section. We inadvertently spent nearly the entire time on one discussion, trying to unpack the facets of a … unique case. In China, an amusement park has opened that is entirely staffed by dwarves. People come to the park simply just for the sights. Is this exploitation?

Some points to consider:

— Without the park, many of these individuals might be unemployable, particularly because of the discrimination that still exists in China. Said one of the dwarves working at the park: "Before coming here, most of us faced discrimination. But here, we are equal and respected. We have our dignity."

— A community has developed among the individuals working at the park. ("We are all very happy.")

— For better or for worse, there are no other options. Though this is a negative reflection on the level of positive liberty within China, at least the dwarves are being given an opportunity of some sort. ("I feel this is our destiny.")

— The owner of the amusement park is just respecting societal norms.

— The business is extraordinarily profitable.

The amusement park garnered international attention after a New York Times article highlighted American criticism of the park, citing a disrespect for basic human rights. But is this a case where the influence of cultural context makes or breaks the argument? Though the "Kingdom of the Little People" would be deemed inappropriate on multiple levels in the United States, it is an economic boon for all involved in China. And what's more, it is not limiting freedom — it's providing a freedom that never existed before, the opportunity for gainful employment.

So are the employees of the amusement park being exploited? Yes and no. While they are being hired simply because of a trait they cannot control, they are being adequately compensated. The Kingdom pays more than many stateside entertainment businesses (which, as another example of questionable exploitation, rent dwarves as leprechauns for St. Patrick's Day). The lifestyle is, in a way, optimal for the employees — they are able to live in a community of people just like them. Though Americans might deem this segregation, for the Chinese, it is an opportunity. Americans look at this example and are appalled, but the context of Chinese societal norms must be taken into account and in this situation, define the case as acceptable. The idealistic voice within us says that such a place as the Kingdom should not exist, but until further opportunities exist for dwarves in China, in a way, it must.

Manning up to the law

Rule of law versus rule of man

It seems like a clear dichotomy. Either your country is governed by standards that all residents adhere to willingly, or society is ruled with the iron fist of one man. And it is generally accepted that the former is far superior. With law, economies thrive. Property rights are guaranteed, the standards for trade are set and everyone follows the same compulsory guidelines. Trust and reputation matter, and they are much more likely to be found in a law-abiding, law-enforcing society.

It's indisputable — there is concrete evidence to support the belief that a greater adherence to laws leads to a higher GDP.

But what does the rule of law really mean? According to one Economist article, there is a dichotomy even within this concept. There is "thick" rule of law, the kind that is inseparable from democracy and morality, and there is "thin" rule of law, which necessitates property rights and justice, but says nothing about the mandated type of governance.

The article argues that economic growth comes more strongly when the law is thicker. In Spain, for example, tremendous economic growth was seen after the fall of the Franco regime and the reinstitution of democracy. But the direction of causality can be a little fuzzy. Take China for example. The economy skyrocketed and society is becoming more judicious — but which happened first? Could the sociopolitical climate of the nation have changed were it not for the economic growth that gave the country the monetary and intellectual resources to adapt?

On a micro level, the difference between rule of law and rule of man becomes fuzzy. Who's to say that the rule of law does not mirror the way of man? And what if that man is collective and thus his will is just as judicious and fair as the law?

In education, the debate is over rules and standards. The World We Created At Hamilton High examines the culture of one American high school and its changes and developments over the course of three decades. During that period, the number of regulations within the school grew exponentially. Once upon a time, standards were sufficient. It was assumed that everyone knew what was expected of them, how to dress and behave respectfully, what kind of conduct was assumed from a "gentleman." But as the society (well, the school community) evolved, simply having standards was not enough. Not all men followed the same rules. And so law-like rules had to be implemented. Consequences had to be laid out and regulations had to be codified.

Zooming back out to the big picture — this rules versus standards comparison can be applied to the rules of law and man and their effects on the economy. Once upon a time, standards were accepted and adhered to. But some cheated the system, others suffered and so, the expectations had to be made explicit. In the United States, the adherence to a set of codes ensures that the same standards are being applied in all arenas. Whether individuals would choose to follow these standards becomes irrelevant because now they have to. Thus, the rule of law and that of man are not always so dichotomous — in many cases, it's quite possible they have the same point of origin. It's when society becomes diversified and rebellious that the rules have to be enforced.