Good Life And Bare Life: Article Analysis

In both Parfitt and Kaplan’s articles, the concepts of “good life” and “bare life” are used to describe humans’ lives in terms of their rights. A bare life is human life itself, it is the state of simply existing and being alive. A good life, in this sense, is when people live under a nation state and are awarded rights and protections. Parfitt explains in his article that a bare life is not protected by the state, therefore these lives can be taken with no punishment or consequences. He goes on to explain that because of the “State of Exception” the number of people living bare lives is increasing overall. The State of Exception is when a ruler uses their power to declare that a law is null in order to complete another action, such as murder. A ruler or state can suspend a person’s constitutional rights, …show more content…
It is uncertain whether the prisoners are protected by the Constitution here since the matter was never resolved in Rasul v. Bush. She compares it to places like Puerto Rico, where the inhabitants are not quite citizens but also not aliens. In spaces like these, the Constitution is not used consistently and citizens are not fully protected by the state; they are in limbo between living good lives and living bare lives. The Supreme Court’s inability to reach a concrete decision in Rasul gives the state more power and more ability to decide for themselves who will be awarded good lives and who will live bare lives. The State of Exception is mentioned in this article as well; Kaplan describes the entire area as being subject to it instead of just individual cases. This State of Exception is backed by the Justice Department, who maintains that the prisoners have no constitutional protections and therefore there is no exceptions needed to revoke their rights. Every governmental system has made decisions and statements that has reinforced the state’s power to give and take rights as they