Knowing it was a persuasive essay, I was lost in the first few paragraphs because I was confused about what the author was arguing about. After re-reading the introducing paragraphs and continuing on until I finished the essay, I would have to say this sort of society that the author talks about would be ideal, but almost impossible if even possible. Before making any agreements, disagreements, or unsure thoughts, let's run through the essay. The author says that the voice of the other is a cry from fellow humans that need help, and that responding to this cry is a human obligation, while ignoring it completely is a fundamental guilt. The author's second premise claims that our current society is founded upon unimaginable human misery and suffering. This foundation has been caused by humans, and therefore, and be undone by the same people. The author asks this question: "How is it fair when some people have more than they need, much more, yet some barely survive with little essential needs?" These lower-class people are the ones that work endlessly so that we can live comfortably with our, as the author says disgustedly, large mansions and Hummers. The third and final premise is: our world of injustice has been humanly constructed. All the racial and sexual discrimination, social classes, and hierarchies and structures of power have been created and caused by humans, and can be undone by humans. The author writes that we must tear down our current society and build a new one, where each human receives what they need and work according to their individual abilities. We must replace our hearts of stone to those of flesh, and work for a better society. This is what the author believes and writes about.

Since this is a response to the essay, here are my two cents. When I read it the first time, I thought, "Wow." It was not that long, but it was dense and sprinkled with unknown vocabulary. At first it reminded me of Communism, but after re-reading I realized it wasn't quite like it. It might have the same, general sort of idea, but I'm not quite sure. The essay doesn't talk about power as much, but more on the needy getting more and the rich getting less. At least, I didn't see anything to do with people struggling and fighting for power. However, for this theoretical society to work, everybody, down to the last person in the farthest corner of the earth, must co-operate. But, however, this sort of clashes with another belief or, arguably, fact: humans are imperfect. Humans are greedy and unfair. Sometimes we lie, we cheat, or we steal from others. We want what other people have. If we all had what we needed, somebody is going to do differently. The author says that our world of injustice has been created by humans. I agree with that. Humans can take it down. I don't quite agree with that. Once again, we are imperfect. Sin is sort of, let's say, inevitable. We're also different. Humans don't think alike, and not everybody is going to want this "fair society". What about the people up on top, the ones with mansions and Hummers? To them, this society is fair. They can do something about it but don't. The lower-classes don't think this society is fair. They're less capable of doing something about it. What I'm trying to say is, there are so many sacrifices needed to be made, so many "this will happen, but so will this.."s, and so many lives we need to change that this sort of society is so hard to set up and once again, almost impossible, if even possible.

Okay hope you liked it. The End. Yay. :]
Uh.. there are probably a TON of mistakes in there.. sorry Joseph. XD Probably due to being confused.. uh.. hopefully's it's right, lol. Aiyah.. now I'm just like.. jlaksdjf;lskdjf.