The Araboolies of Liberty Street
By Sam Swope; Farrar, Straus and Giroux
General Pinch keeps strict order on Liberty Street by threatening the residents with the possibility of an army invasion. The people live under a shadow of fear and gloom. That is until the colorful Araboolies move in and shake things up. The children hatch a plan of revolution and bring liberty to Liberty Street.
Guidelines for Philosophical Discussion
By BJ Ramsey
The Araboolies of Liberty Street raises issues that lie within the field of Social and Political Philosophy. When determining what makes the ‘best’ society, philosophers try to decide what justifies our choice of laws and policies. One view is that laws are only justified if they serve and protect individual liberty. For example, laws that protect freedom of speech and the right to privacy would be justified under this view. In a society governed by this view, the number of laws regulating our behavior would be kept at a minimum. In stark contrast to this is the view that the interest of society takes precedence over individual liberty and therefore laws are justified when they serve the community’s interest. A just law in this type of society might involve withholding information from the public so as not to cause community agitation. This type of society would have more laws than the first type.
One of the goals for a discussion of this story is for the children to think about rules and what areas of our lives they think they should be applied to. In the Araboolies of Liberty Street (ALS), General Pinch has rules for everything, which makes for a pretty unhappy populace. This is one extreme. On the other hand, what would life be like without any rules? Is there a problem with letting people live however they please?
Another philosophical issue that can be discussed is civil disobedience. When a law is considered unjust, what are the appropriate actions that can be taken to effect change? Some philosophers argue that civil disobedience should be engaged in only if basic liberties are infringed upon and only after all legal avenues have been exhausted. Others argue that these criteria are much too restrictive, since, among other things, anti-war and environmental protests could not be engaged in under this stance. Also, in a society in which the government is oppressive, like South Africa under Apartheid, there are no legal avenues that oppressed people can take to effect change. Some philosophers argue that only in this type of case, where the government is ‘illiberal’, are people justified in breaking the law in civil disobedience. On this view, the citizens of the United States would not have the right to protest through civil disobedience, but only to effect change through legal channels.
The goal while discussing this aspect of ALS is for the children to think about what distinguishes a fair rule from an unfair rule and what they think is the appropriate way to get an unfair rule changed. Is there only one appropriate action that can be taken, such as change the law through legal channels? Or is the appropriate action dependent on how much harm the law causes or who is in charge of the law making process?
Questions for Philosophical Discussion
By B.J. Ramsay
Everyone was terrified of the General and his army, and orders were orders: the children had to stay inside.
“When their army comes, they’ll take away the Araboolies. Well, I won’t let them! I won’t!”