RPC Western Literature II: Kant, and “The Day the Earth Stood Still”

500 words on this topic: “Is Kant’s nature/freedom dualism clearer in ‘Farewell to the Master’ or ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’? Explain.”
Greetings everyone! Today we’ve got a rare essay from the last term of the Ron Paul Curriculum’s Western Literature II class.
This essay concerns the famous short story “Farewell to the Master” and the sci-fi flick “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, on how nature and freedom are present within both stories.
First of all, “Farewell to the Master” was written by Harry Bates and inspired by the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant (many of his works are considered among the greatest contributors to the Enlightenment). Kant’s philosophy was considered against-the-tide of his time, for he considered that protection from nature and a free society were exclusive. Mankind could attain control over the powers of nature throw human innovation or sciences, but in doing so lose the individual freedoms to the tools and civilization innovation creates. This fundamental dualism is still obvious in both the story of ‘Farewell to the Master’ by Harry Bates and the movie based on it, ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’.

Both forms of fiction share the same beginning: A Martian man named “Klaatu” as well as his mysterious, invisible robot “Gnut” appear in the Washington D.C. capitol, with a message concerning the Earth’s horrible fate.
But the book and movie split drastically past this point. In the book it is revealed in a plot twist that the robot was in charge of the alien messenger, while in the movie “Gort” (the movie has a different name for the robot) is actually the alien’s bodyguard.
The driving action of the film is how apparently, earth “complex” politics end up denying the alien a stage to speak his urgent, time-sensitive message to representatives of all countries at once, so he resorts to infiltrating the state. In this way comparing the advances of society with the loss of freedom, for people of the earth to participate and for the alien to spread his message. Also, the short story lacks a moral takeaway and is more of a creative work, while morality is a consistent discussion throughout the film.

The book struggles to answer the audience’s questions on the point of Klaatu’s goals and the purpose of his ship, compared to how the movie handles and frames these ponderings, at least. In the book, Klaatu is tragically killed near the end, shifting the shocking death to focus entirely on the robot and its mysterious power. The book never really goes any more in-depth. The book, after the tragedy of Klaatu’s death, focuses on the mystery of the robot. He represents both a creator of life and the product of technology, but Klaatu’s servitude to him is never explained. At the very end of the book, his abilities to duplicate life are revealed. The robot, which was created by spacemen became a creator itself, but his rule over Klaatu (and presumably all spacemen) comes as a surprise because he still took care of him as far as attempting to save his life, which was not the point of Kant’s theory.

Kant’s theory is mainly reflected by these stories by the fact that Klaatu goes to Earth, with its “advanced” society, with the intent of freely touring and acting as galactic ambassador, but the state ends up locking him down into enforced isolation.
I do sincerely believe that the morality of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ is more apparent to a broad audience, and its interpretation of the original plot is a clearer depiction of Kant’s dualism paradox, if less detailed.

RPC Government 1B Essay #13: African Economies, Front-Loading and Public Choice

(1) What kind of success did Africa have with governments that wielded great power over the different African economies?

(2) What are some of the major arguments advanced by the Public Choice school of economics?

(3) What are front-loading and political engineering? (See the video and reading for Lesson 74.)

Hello everyone! It’s been quite a year.

During the postwar time period of Africa, many countries such as Nigeria or South Africa saw a significant skyrocketing of nationalism (and government tyranny). For instance, the country of “Zaire” (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) was run by a man named Mobuto Seko, who excessively spent 5 million dollars of net worth that could’ve been used to support his country’s squalid lifestyle and economically vulnerable citizens. He spoke highly of Zaire’s “growing” economy and that the future had nowhere to go but up for Africa! (Whilst investing entirely in European products and land but cast out as much as 500 million dollars’ worth of foreign business out of Zaire) Another “Socialist” African dictator, Julius Nyerere “Teacher” controlled Tanzania in a one-party rule. He ended up banning many immigrants (mainly Asian workers) in 1967 through an unjust use of power with the Arusha declaration, but this ended up backfiring, and declining Tanzania’s wellbeing and ability to produce. Contrast this with Kenya, (admittingly, this was also a one-party nation but) it did not have a socialist economy, but instead the ruler Jomo Kenyatta, invested in tourism and foreign cooperation, causing life in Kenya to be considerably better for the average citizen (Compared to Zaire and Tanzania).

Public Choice politics is very straightforward, let me state that first. The traditional view popularized by state education paints government officials as servants committed to the public good. On the other hand, the public choice school of economics view: self-interested individuals remain interested only in themselves when elected to powerful positions, they do not become magically interested in serving the people upon gaining a seat in the government. The only thing politicians are interested in is getting enough people satisfied into voting for their re-election. The idea of “Tyranny of the minority” comes from the fact that the state can impose costs that they won’t personally pay. Only the people who benefit from the political process will be rationally informed enough of what and who to vote for.

Finally, what is front-loading and political engineering? Well, as my teacher Toom Woods instructed in lesson 74, it is using government laws and regulations to achieve a goal. But what does that mean? Attempting to artificially increase the number of jobs for one, or the military as a whole. In finance, front-loading is the act of disproportionately using too much of a project’s budget at the beginning, often with promises of “never before seen innovation” to justify the use of money to supporters.

RPC Western Civ II Final Essay: The Individual VS The Collective

Writing assignment: What is one issue that reflects the individualist versus collectivist outlook in your own times? How does it do this?
Well, everyone, this is the end of Western Civilization II! I have had a wonderful time learning about the events of Western History from 1492 to the end of the Cold War, my teachers Tom Woods and Hunt Tooley have been incredibly informative, and I’m ready to cover the topic of today’s essay.
What is one issue that reflects the individualist versus collectivist outlook in my own times? How does it do this? Well, let’s cover collectivism first. Collectivism is an idea that puts cohesiveness and collective worth in the spotlight, while pushing out individual worth. Collectivists value personal sacrifice for the group and society’s “greater good”. In history we have seen this view backed first by German Sociologists in 1930, but this model of collectivism would later present itself as a model of Marxism/Leninism.
What about the opposite pole? Individualism focuses down upon “the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization”. Politically individualist ideologies tend to follow the line of thought which supports civil liberties and is found on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum, as well as anarchism and libertarianism. The real focus is all on the individual, and how every individual has a set of rights protecting them from coercion via the state.
People opposed to this view claim and argue that it is not only selfish but heartless to put the “individual” over the “collective”; that we need Collectivism. My counterpoint (and a common one at that) is that kindness can certainly exist in Individualism. How? Voluntary cooperative groups! Collectivism should not be considered a truly collective effort unless all involved consent to a decision, but that would only be possible in a voluntary, individualist society.

In history this debate has been present in the fight over the technological “revolution”, whether the government should be allowed to survey internet/telecommunications between citizens. Legal rights and surveillance surrounding technology have been important parts of the collectivist vs. individualist debate.

An example of this debate from today’s time I would say, has been the whole Covid-19 situation. Just a few years ago, the world’s governments-imposed lockdowns, reset the economy by shutting down small businesses, expanded global corporations and implemented cashless payments into everything. Many collectivists were in favor of these acts, as the individualists’ view promoted opposition to this, due to the intrusions to choose, and free will. And while the debate against the choice to wear masks in public or no have ended a while ago, people still argue how mandatory taking the vaccine should be. The “health passports” that have been in the works would become a great tool of the collective, surveying and controlling the access to movement, employment and education just based off someone’s health. As an individualist, I hope these never become fully implemented, and that there should be a choice to make on whether you’ll allow the government to jab you with vaccines.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #32: The Dangers of The Cold War

Writing assignment: In what senses was the world a dangerous place in the 1960s and 1970s?

The world has always been a dangerous place, I think I should start with that statement. Nowadays we are faced with disease, the threat of war, dangerously cultural schisms, drug abuse and crime. This is effectively the same in the 60’s and 70’s, might I add! History, as they say, has a habit of repeating itself.

But just HOW was it (the world) dangerous? Consider the worldviews of the time: Karl Marc was known for stating religion as a drug, but progressives in the United States (during the Wilson administration) called school a drug, as it kept everyone satisfied and obedient. Public school education became more extensive, students became delayed from the workforce for social engineering. (Europe was *less affected by this, but still felt the heat of such a changing world stage)

Assassination and terrorism would be a good example to bring up. The Kennedy assassination of 1963 struck fear and suspicion into the population of the U.S. (and all those that were influenced by the U.S., which back in the 60’s and 70’s was the ENTIRE WORLD), losing the state much confidence. Racial conflict and cultural revolution was prevalent all across the world, Asia was facing multiple Communist/Socialist revolutions (that all escalated into catastrophic chess-game wars between the Soviets and ‘States) such as the Vietnam War. Chemical warfare was growing as a destructive industry, such as the Agent Orange project, the aforementioned chemical was sprayed on Vietnamese forests to wipe out vegetation, the dangerous toxins ravaged anything exposed to it and killed millions. Its dangers were only admitted in the 90s.

Drugs brought terror to “the homefront”, with the CIA’s failed truth serum LSD, used for the hallucinogenic elements that were discovered, so people found a market for it. Alternatively, there was a revival of free-market thought, so overall a widespread confusion of the American stance on society and politics.

Overall, while the world only had different dangers, Earth, will all its countries and different people, will always have some kind of conflict.

RPC Government 1B Essay #12: “Living Constitutions” and Nullification

(2) What is the idea of a “living Constitution”? In what way could it be argued that the American Revolution was a war against a “living Constitution”?

(3) What is nullification? Discuss one example from U.S. history in which a state or group of states acted in the spirit of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

Sorry about my snooze of a title, today I’m here to explain the importance of having a written constitution with actual, hard-set rules compared to a “living and breathing” unwritten constitution.

First, what’s the idea? A “living Constitution” is one that is barely written, and more simply a set of traditions that the government will PROBABLY adhere to. They likely won’t, and decisions will be drastically different as the years go by SPECIFICALLY because they do not have their rules set in stone. The American Revolution was a war against such a constitution because they were fighting for independence from the British empire, which was a user of a breathing constitution. They wanted hard, fair rules to determine their freedoms and God-given rights. (If they needed to make changes to the constitution they could ADD amendments onto it, amendments that adhere to the constitution)

Now, what’s nullification? Deriving from the Kentucky and Virginia ratifying convention/resolution 1788, nullification is the states’ right to refuse compliance with any orders of the federal government if they are deemed unconstitutional. What’s the reasoning? The federal government would gain a monopoly over the reinvention of the constitution if they didn’t do this! If the federal government has such a monopoly, it will reinterpret the constitution in its favor, instead of the states’. The federal government is only allowed limited powers, if it goes beyond these limits, the states can invalidate or “nullify” its actions.

Derived from the Virginia ratifying convention and Kentucky Resolution of 1798, nullification is the right of the states to refuse to comply with any ordinance from the federal government if it is deemed unconstitutional. The reasoning is that if the federal government is allowed to have a monopoly on reinventing the constitution, it will tend to reinterpret in its favor, not for the liberty of the states. The federal government is only allowed limited powers, if it goes beyond these limits, the states can invalidate or “nullify” its actions. The best example of such a nullification in place would be the 1850 Fugitive Slave act’s passing. “Any slave who escaped to a northern state were to be returned.” Wisconsin deemed that this was fully unconstitutional and nullified the law, quoting the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 as reasoning.

RPC Government 1B Essay #11: Unification & Liberty

(2) What are the compact and nationalist theories of the Union?

(3) Can smaller political units contribute to the cause of liberty? If so, how?

Greetings all! This week I’ve been learning about the idea of a state’s size. Whether a bigger country has larger security (or not), or how much better a land is when there are many small countries next to each other, and “Althusian” society vs that of Hobbes’.

Now, I would start out by bringing up the theory of the American Union, (which is also a good way to show off Althusian and Hobbes’ society) First there is: “The Compact Theory”, explains that the United States is a collection of *SELF-governing states, that joined together and created a central governing unit. This theory states that the states are legitimate entities, not fruits of a central government. This is a theory, but given how it is seen in real life, it may as well as be fact. There is a contrasting theory to this, “The Nationalist Theory”, claims the states exist only because of the Union, and the Union (Central Government) comes first in decisions, and this theory dictates the individual states have no real regency. This theory should be disproven, for the United States Constitution never says the U.S. is the “United State”, it is known as the United States.

Now, why does it matter that the U.S. is a group of many small(ish) powers instead of one great mass? Mainly because of the security that many, small, governments bring in opposition to the trouble that one large government brings. If there is a great trouble of crime, economic instability or persecution, being able to quickly get up and move to land with different laws/economy/peace is important to the individual. Having many small nations also DOESN’T get in the way cooperation, as, if these countries/powers are all so close to each other, they can A) Get different trade deals between each other to suit needs and B) their populations will likely be speaking similar, convenient languages and so the language barrier would be easier to break.

RPC Government 1B Essay #10: Money Matters

(2) What is the origin of money? (In other words, how does money first arise? Consult lesson 47.)
(3) Name and explain three disadvantages that have been identified with fiat money.

The concept of money originates from bartering (or rather, how problematic bartering could be). Back when the concept did not exist, if you wanted to get yourself a hat, and you were the apple grower, the only way you’re getting the hat maker to “sell” you a hat is IF he’d like some of your apples! (And not everyone needs nor wants apples whenever you’re able to sell.) However, people started realizing that things like rare shells, bits of gold or other shiny metals/crystals (at least for gold, that is called a “commodity money”, because it has value off the fact it can be used for things and is rare) were favored by just about everyone due to rarity/beauty or uses. Eventually governments of these peoples using gold would print out “gold notes”, pieces of paper stating that this person with a “20-dollar gold note”, would have the right to trade the note in for that much gold! Eventually the “gold standard” was abandoned, and these paper notes became what are known as “fiat” money. A technically worthless commodity that only has its price because it certainly convenient to use as a form of currency.
First of the three disadvantages, is that if fiat money reaches a value equal to 0 (or near nothingness), it can never regain its old value in the economy it lost its value. Unlike commodity money (such as gold, land or gems) all known hyperinflations are associated with fiat (especially paper) money.
With fiat money, it is harder to save up for the future. Now we need to value stability as wells as investing, which is a tricky business, rather than just going out and acquiring precious metals.
Fiat money can also be considered an ethical issue. Risk tolerance is higher when someone only sees their gains, not their losses.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #29: The Revenge in WWII

Written assignment: (250 words min.) In what ways did revenge figure into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II?

Greetings all! This week I have finally finished my studies of the actual wartime events that comprised World War II. It was a time of barbarism, where the war business truly thrived, and the populations of all those countries involve were engulfed in fear and anger towards the other sides. Out of all the stories behind World War II, the motif of revenge is present throughout it all. Near the end of the war, revenge was the intent of many a country, considering the events of recent World War I. Because of this, no allies were legitimately on friendly terms between each other. The Soviets wanted revenge on the Germans for what they’d done in earlier battles, so they closed in on Berlin battle front with the other allied powers, like the United States and Great Britain. Raids and expulsions of citizens from opposing countries were frequent. When the allies were bombing civilian cities of Japan, you can believe that the memory of Pearl Harbor was in all their minds. Around 1945, central European countries captured citizens who were German and put them in labor camps, executed them, or drove them out, and although this was not a fighting tactic or strategy, it was absolutely a form of revenge. It’s also important to mention the French’s “purification” of Jews, prosecuting (alleged) fascists, they had executions and used public for those who were suspected in France to have had relations with Germans. This was all merely a tip of the iceberg that was the hate for each other prevalent by the government’s propaganda and bombing of civilians.

RPC Government 1B Essay #9: A Review of The Week

(1) The “benefit principle” has been used to justify progressive income taxation. What is the benefit principle? Are there any problems with it? If so, what?

(2) What is the Washington Monument Syndrome?

(3) What is the primary problem facing a policymaker who is trying to design a program to benefit people in unfortunate circumstances? (Lesson 43 will help here.)

(4) In practice, what have been some of the outcomes — intended or unintended — of anti-poverty programs?

What’s the “benefit principle”? The benefit principle is a set of logic that rich people benefit more from government protection, such as law enforcement, than the poor so the rich should pay more taxes. This principle is flawed by its definition because, if you were to pay based off how much the government supports your salary, and if the government provided 100% for you, the logic would require you pay back 100% back, just to match costs.

What is “Washington Monument Syndrome”? a phenomenon that was brought about by political historians. When a government tries to stop pushing back against spending, it is claimed by loose-pocket politicians to say they’ll cut the funds of its most “visible” public services and programs (for instance, the arts, national parks/landmasses, public employees). t is used to justify politicians who do not want budget cuts. Lawmakers use the ‘evidence’ of this syndrome to say that any budget cut would destroy such essential services, specifically law enforcement and health and safety. They could certainly cut their budgets without doing away with natural parks (take the CGI movie Yogi Bear for example), perhaps taking away from their pockets? But who am I kidding, politicians don’t have “Serving the people” in their job descriptions!

What’s the primary problem facing a policymaker who’s trying to help people via government programs? Democratic social programs tend to produce net harm and are unavailable to provide a good solution. For example, smoking addictions are responsible for over 480,000 deaths per year in the United States. In practice, there are two outcomes- the problem persists, or it worsens. An antismoking program would need a persuasive reward to induce quitting, but not a reward promising enough to make new people start smoking to ‘win’ the reward. As a result, the reward will either be not convincing or too convincing and overall net improvements are unchanged (or made worse). If someone considering smoking hears about a $10,000 reward for smokers to quit as part of a rehab program. Beginning to smoke now has some serious benefits, but they might get addicted anyway and never even get the reward, only adding to the issue.

Finally, what of the outcomes of such similar, poverty reducing programs? You would think they’d reduce poverty, but by 1994, government welfare spending had increased four times since 1967, yet poverty rate had stayed the same. Individuals are two and a half times more likely to escape poverty by not taking welfare. Family dissolution was an unfortunate outcome of this.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #28: The Brutality of WWII

Written assignment: Did World War II become more brutal as time went on? In what ways? Was the brutality on only one side?

Greetings all! This week I do believe I’ve gotten to the very height of my studies of World War II, and based off what I’ve read, it was incredibly brutal.

But did it become *more* brutal as time went on? And to answer that question, I would say, yes, it got more and more brutal/depressing/insane as time went on. First of all, as the war went on, more and more countries got involved, resulting in grander and larger death tolls, as well as more POWs. From a technological standpoint, humanity found bigger and “better” ways to kill each other: superior guns, bigger ballistics, faster/stronger ships and planes, the Atomic Bomb. (Not to say the war only created technology intended to hurt, as many useful and peaceful inventions, such as new medicines, were also invented because of the World Wars)

The brutality was not only targeted on one side I must state. While The Third Reich, Italy and the Japanese Empire did unforgettable deeds (from purging minority groups to employing kamikaze tactics), the allied Britain, Soviet Russia and United States were responsible for some war crimes of their own (bombing civilians, starvation tactics). All that must be said about both sides involved is that, on the battlefield and back at ‘HQ, those who strike violence upon others can never be a true hero.

RPC Western Literature II Essay #18: Kipling’s Copybook

(150 words) What is one of Kipling’s copybook headings that applies to recent public opinion?

Greetings everyone! I’ve been continuing to read plenty of great works of Western Literature since I last posted. This week I’ve been the poems and books of Rudyard Kipling.

The poem in question is named “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”. This is a post-war commentary of European society in the 20th century, subsisting of four-line rhyming stanzas which each apply a different perspective on different themes.

“Copybook headings” in question refer to short stanzas or parables that schoolchildren would be assigned to write over and over again, until either their writing hand gave out, or the lesson is memorized, whichever comes first.

What is the moral of the story? How do the stanzas apply to recent public opinion? The moral of the story is this: that the “gods of copybook headings” teaching will always remain, however the trends and short-lived philosophies of the world will fade and die. To quote one of the stanzas: “Stick to the Devil you know”.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #27: The Escalation of WWII

Written assignment: (250 words min.) From the readings and lectures, in what sense did World War II become more “global” during its first two or two-and-a-half years?

Greetings everyone! This week I have studied all about the beginning of the actual fighting of World War II, including how the United States got involved on both Pacific and European fronts, as well as Blitzkrieg and (the lesser known) conflict between Finland the USSR: “The Winter War”.

World War II began (Well, was encouraged to begin) with the German invasion of Poland. The Winter War of 1939 showed the Soviets Union invading Finland, and at that point Finland joined with Germany. Breaking the German-Soviet nonaggression pact with invasion, the Germans pushed the eastern front of the war into Russia. Britain, France, and the Soviet Union were the main countries in the Allied powers at this time, fighting against the Axis powers, (which were Japan, Italy & Germany) but France was almost immediately occupied (like Poland) by Blitzkrieg.
Now, I feel that World War II became more “global” during its first two or two-and-a-half years of conflict because of the escalation of the Japanese Empire’s tenacity and the U.S. losing all “neutrality” and joining the war/being attacked by Germany and Japan. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president of the U.S. at the time, decried that the United States would be a “neutral” country during this war, but FDR bended the definitions of “neutral”. Anti-interventionist parties tried to stop FDR’s inevitable plan to join the war but were unsuccessful. Despite what Roosevelt said in his neutrality speech, he had always intended to join in eventually but was waiting for the right time, once the other countries had allied and joined in the war. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, adding another reason for the United States to join. Hitler joined into this attack, giving the U.S. two very convenient reasons to go to war by the beginning of the 40’s.

RPC Government 1B Essay #8: The Pitfalls of Industrial Policy + Private Property Solving Environmental Problems

(2) What are some of the pitfalls of industrial policy?

(3) How can private-property rights help solve environmental problems?

Greetings everyone! Let’s cut straight to today’s essay.

“Industrial Policy”, a wide-net of economic reform propositions starting in 1980, was mainly focused on the politics of the economy, instead of being focused on the market itself. It reduced and continues to reduce motivation for innovation because the businesses who might or might not be struggling to stay afloat get to use government money instead of problem-solving. This is one of its two disadvantages, the 2nd being how, through government redistribution of money, it is difficult for new or innovative startups to compete with them. Under the industrial policy, both employees and resources are moved around and dispersed. Also, it’s possible for companies who side with politicians to receive more funding, regardless of worth. Industrial policy could be used to solve fabrication issues, but not much else.

Let me ask you a question. If you and a hundred other people were all hunting in a free forest with loads of deer, would (no one owning the forest, but everyone is allowed to use it for free) anyone try to conserve the deer population? Maybe one smart guy would decide to “save the deer” to repopulate for next year, but in doing so, the 99 other hunters will just hunt even more! “More for me!”. Let me change this metaphor to something more realistic. If you had a rental car, would you go out of your way spending money to fix it and tune it up? No, you wouldn’t, because it’s *not* your car! If you purchased your own car, you would treat as a good as one does their child, and take it in for repairs because it *is* your private property! This is how private property can save the environment, because no one would actively dump all over their own land. This is why we need better government protection for people’s property, to chastise people polluting other’s private properties.

RPC Government 1B Essay #7: WWII “Prosperity” and Antitrust

3) Evaluate this statement: “World War II was a time of great prosperity in the United States.”

Greetings all! This week I’ve been continuing to read up on Government/Economic and Social policies.

“World War II was a time of great prosperity in the United States”. Is this statement true? Absolutely not! Any reasonable economist can agree on this fact and let me prove why.

First of all, the uninformed say that wartime reduces unemployment rates, but the problem here is that the unemployment rates went down because the unemployed were DRAFTED. (And women went into the field to replace the already-employed men, reducing it further) This reduction of unemployment doesn’t matter for an argument backing prosperity because these new employees are unnaturally hired.

“Some economists took a look at all of the numbers for weapon production and claimed that it was good for the economy!”

Well to be honest, this could be a good argument if it weren’t for the fact that, one, these weapons that are being produced are purchased and used by the government, not the people and the market, so it doesn’t *help* the economy (and even though it can be argued that we “need” weapons and armies to protect us, it doesn’t mean it’s something automatically affordable), and it even hurts the economy, because it so much costs in materials to produce. AND, more often than not, these weapons, tanks and other military vehicles are often sent overseas to be blown up in said wars. You can’t argue the economy is booming because we’re spending so much labor and purchasing power on mundane objects the government takes and destroys, so the same goes for weapons.

Last but not least, the numbers themselves are meaningless, as the government said what they would pay for the supplies and dictated how much needed to be produced. There wasn’t ANY supply or demand involved in this practice, so it’s agreed upon (by all who take a second to just, think about it) that WWII was not a period of grand prosperity for the U.S. (but the peace period afterwards *certainly* was!).

RPC Western Civ II Essay #26: The “Interwar” Period

Written assignment (250 words min.): Considering information in the readings and lectures, what problems from World War I helped contribute to the outbreak of World War II?
Greetings to everyone reading this! This week I have been learning (under the guest lecturer Hunt Tooley) about the period of time between World War 1 and World War 2 known as “the Interwar Period”, where Europe (and the whole Earth really)’s political and economic scene changed drastically, Fascism and Communism taking over a majority of the political powers, many small Balkan countries like Poland brewing tension, Japan gaining a level of aggression against China as well as all the other island nations in the Pacific, and the Great Depression hit everyone hard (especially on the country of Germany).

Now, I mentioned the Great Depression hitting everyone hard financially, and that would include all the unstable government that were overtaken by the Totalitarians that were Adolf Hitler for Germany, or Mussolini for Italy. This period of time of the 20’s-30’s are often stated to be a “Broken World”. It was a sad era for liberty. In economics, there was inflation and instability while in turn nationalism and war collectivism grew, which contributed to the start of WWII.
The Paris Peace at the end of World War I was made without consulting the leaders of any of the losing countries, as a result, the five major countries that participated in World War I simply distributed territory as they pleased while writing the treaty.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #25: The Russian Revolution

(1) What are the primary differences discussed in this week’s videos between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism? (2) Historian Richard Pipes wrote, “Soviet Russia was the first society in history to outlaw law.” What did he mean by that? (3) What was the Russian government under Lenin like? What kinds of tasks did it attempt to achieve?

Greetings to everyone reading, this week was entirely dedicated to reading of the Russian Revolution, starting in the time of WW1, by the Bolsheviks.

First of all, what ARE the primary differences between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism? The main focus for standard Marxism is that capitalism should be overthrown and replaced with socialism, communism being the ultimate form of socialism but less ‘natural’ to achieve. Leninism adds to that by applying the historical materialism of Marxism to real life methods. Main difference: Leninism had a unique trait of the working class/proletariat overthrowing the high class/bourgeoisie being overseen by so-called intellectuals (the Communists), a third-party planning and running the proletariat’s projects. This was less of a Socialist system, more one revolving around a “vanguard”, where ideals are fully achieved & enforced by dictatorship.

2nd, historian Richard Pipes wrote: “Soviet Russia was the first society in history to outlaw law”, but what he meant about that was that, during the Bolshevik revolution (under direction by Lenin), overthrew the law and government, creating its own opposite government, thereby “outlawing” the law of the land.

Finally, Lenin’s government accomplished (some of but not entirely) the following deeds:

• They murdered the royal family, not just Tsar Nicholas II but every one of his relatives (to prove to their followers that this new system would be forever, and there’d be no going back to the Tsarist capitalism).
• Took control of the production capabilities of industrial cities and labor forces (which ultimately shot their economy in the foot).
• Enforced propaganda masked as democratic works (used not to eliminate the terror of the populace but instead to justify it).
• Abolished many churches, Orthodox & Catholic (turning them into public warehouses and bathrooms).

All of this was in the name of “progress”, and anyone who opposed the Communist government in these acts were treated (at best) as buffoons who couldn’t see reason or “think forward for the future” and “reeducated”, or (at worst) outright killed.

RPC Government 1B Essay #6: Child Labor, Labor Unions

3) What has been the most significant contributing factor to the abolition of child labor?

4) Evaluate this statement: “All workers have benefited from the existence of labor unions.”

Greetings all! This week I’ve been learning all about the Socialist/Capitalist “economic calculations”, and about labor.

First of all, the most significant contributing factor to the abolition of child labor is the increased productivity of labor. Up to this day in history, not one society has ever been productive enough for children’s parents/guardians to afford paying for the family’s livelihood. Thanks to this increased productivity and capital, the leading abundance and purchasing freedom has allowed many more children to stay at home instead of working to keep their family from poverty. Criminalizing and making child labor illegal would only have made children starve or be forced into prostitution, as had happened in other countries pressured to stop child labor. For the practice of child labor to disappear from society, it has to come naturally, with an increased standard of living from everyone’s productivity, not government banning.

Speaking of labor, what about labor unions? Are: “All workers benefited from the existence of labor unions”? When we picture unions in out head, we think of a positive, wage-increasing, standard-setting organization for the workers. On the surface, this IS seen, but (to quote Frederic Bastiat) there is something NOT seen about unions. The crucial point is that unions insist on a minimum wage rate higher than what would be achieved for the given labor factor without the union. By doing so, they necessarily cut out potential men whom the employee could’ve hired. Add to this the fact that a lot of times these unions ask for benefits such as paid vacations, full healthcare coverage, etc. and you see that, labor unions help all the workers currently working, but lock others out. And besides, wages were getting higher without having to cut jobs before any involvement from unions arose.

RPC Government 1B Essay #5: “Income Inequality” & Foreign Aid

(3) What have been the effects of foreign aid programs, such that virtually everyone was describing them as failures by the 1990s?

(4) What are the major assumptions identified at the beginning of the lesson on discrimination that most people make about discrimination? Is there good reason to doubt these assumptions?

Hey all, this week I’ve been learning about the ideas of how public science, foreign aid programs, “income inequality” and discrimination, and how they (do or don’t) affect society, the economy, and governance.
First of all, a major assumption about discrimination is the discrimination between women and men in the work force. The supposed “gender pay gap” does not exist, most men and most women work in different fields (because women, who have children, often have to be out of the workforce for certain periods of time, taking care of their child. Not to say there aren’t exceptions). Racial discrimination is also majorly assumed to be play big factors in society. People get offended when factual statistics (German people are commonly industrious/hard working, the Irish drink more commonly, etc.) are used to explain the statuses of different people groups in the economy, but there are A) always exceptions and B) not bad things! Everyone was created different and set for different tasks. It is always better to have the mind of a skeptic.

Next, foreign aid programs. A researcher named Peter Boone created a two-decade study of over 90 countries, and he found (like how many economists and market researchers admit today) absolutely no matches between foreign aid and the improvement of poverty-stricken peoples. (Even the mainstream media admits this)

Foreign aid programs are always too late to help the population, but just in time to go into the pockets of dictators and warlords!

RPC Western Civ II Essay #24: Wilson’s 14 Points & The Pavement of WW2

(3) Explain five of the major ideas outlined in Wilson’s Fourteen Points.

(4) How have some historians argued that the peace settlement at the end of World War I helped pave the way for World War II?

Greetings all! This week for the Ron Paul Curriculum’s 11th grade Western Civilization class, I have been reading up on “The Great War” WW1. Today I’m going to be reviewing the ideas behind U.S. president Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”, and how WW1 ultimately paved the way for the much worse, bloodier, conflict of World War 2.

So, what are the Fourteen Points of Woodrow Wilson? Well, (1) here’s a list:

• Open covenants of peace and transparent diplomacy.
• Absolute freedom of the seas.
• The removal of economic and trade barriers.
• An end to arms races.
• National self-determination to figure in adjustment of colonial claims.
• Evacuation of all Russian territory.
• Evacuation and restoration of Belgium.
• All French territory restored.
• Italian frontiers adjusted.
• Austria-Hungary given “opportunity to autonomous development.”
• Rumania, Serbia, Montenegro evacuated and given independence.
• Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire should become sovereign; nations under Turkish rule should become autonomous; Dardanelles should be open to all.
• Independent Poland with access to the sea should be created.
• A “general association of nations” should be formed to guarantee political independence and territorial integrity to “great and small states alike.”

As you can see, a good 1st theme seen through these points, was the attempt to eliminate the immediate causes for future wars. (Imperialism, restricting trades, arms races and disregarding nationalism) His 2nd theme would be to free sea travel. You see, during the war Great Britain and Germany both committed some heinous acts against sea travel (laying mines for indifferent naval blockades or using submarines to sink neutral and enemy ships alike). His 3rd theme was against Colonial Claims, he believed all the colonial powers involved in the war should begin taking the wants of their colonized into consideration when going about their empires. 4th, *Disarmament*, during the great war (due to multiple arms races), weapons technology had progressed to what could be considered monstrous just 10 years before the war! Poison gas, tanks, machine guns, you name it! Naturally these Fourteen Points made an effort to reduce the arms of these now-peaceful nations. Finally, I would say his 5th theme was to open diplomacy between the nations. All the politics behind the first world war were quite cloak-and-dagger.

Now, did Woodrow Wilson succeed at any of the 5 themes behind his Fourteen Points? That’s an entirely different point.

Now, after the war, a conference was held called “The Paris Peace”. A settlement was made behind closed doors by the four largest European powers: The U.S., France, Great Britain and Italy (the victors of the war). Interestingly all the other nations involved with the war had no say in this conference, and could not debate any decisions made. The issue which some have argued created tensions leading to the next World War was the inconsistent application of the self-determination principles of all countries involved in the war, not just the “Big Four”. Going back to Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, he intended to give minorities their own nations, but he ended up splitting minorities even further. Most importantly, Germany had no choice in how its land was split, and this ultimately led to (what historians say) the ignition of the Second War.

(1): https://www.thoughtco.com/the-fourteen-points-3310117#:~:text=The%20summarized%20Fourteen%20Points%20included%3A%201%20Open%20covenants,Belgium.%208%20All%20French%20territory%20restored.%20More%20items source of the list

RPC Government 1B Essay #4: “Public Goods” & Improved Living Standards

(1) What are some of the problems with the concept of public goods?

(2) Describe the process by which the market economy tends toward an improvement in the standard of living.

Hi all, this week we’re continuing down the road of Government 1B, learning about the misplaced fear of “monopolies” (innovators improving their markets versus government-controlled markets), “public goods” and the standard of living’s improvements.

First of all, public goods are considered to have 2 specific characteristics: Non-Exclusivity and Jointness in Consumption. Jointness in Consumption are about how public goods, once created, are able to be used by multiple individuals without any additional cost. Non-Exclusivity dictates that once this good is created consumers cannot be excluded from using it. What are some examples of common goods? Often listed are public highways, lighthouses and the national guard. One good argument against common goods is that, more often than not, the private/volunteers’ alternatives that could be created are often superior to government sanctioned goods.

The people who support common goods and government interventions (Interventionalists) argue that if all people all realized they could be free-loaders in a category of goods with these characteristics, those goods would stop being produced in the right quantity, therefore the government should step in and control it. This objection is useless because not everyone will default to this parasitic view. Regardless, some would voluntarily produce goods. If the market fails to keep up resources, the government does too the government controlling goods is not a better option.

(One more argument against this is with the definition of public goods itself. Many private goods can appear to express public goods characteristics. Say, people using fireworks, providing live entertainment, or pollinator garden, to make some very simple examples.)

Now, what’s up with the process that “the free market improves the state of living”? It simply boils down to the freedom of improvement for capital goods. Innovators are able to make their products/services cheaper/more attainable because the creators of base materials are able to set cheap enough prices for the innovators (and where they are all incentivized to stay in business). Everyone involved in the free market and living in that society becomes wealthier when businesses are not manipulated by the government and can invest in capital goods and new technology.

Western Literature II Term Paper Outline, on The Importance of Optimism in Western Literature

Hey everyone! This week I’m posting my Western Literature II’s Term Paper (Outline)! At the end of the school year, I will post the full, finished work, but my assignment today was to post this outline.

Present introduction, greet reader, explain topic. (“How important has the theme of optimism been in the development of Western literature since 1493”)

Go into topic: (Going fairly chronological, maybe not book-by-book, but century-by-century)

• Explain how myth and Christianity were prevalent since long before the 1490’s, and how they were/are impactful to Western literature.
• Explain optimism’s importance through (late) 15th century literature.
• Go on a tangent mentioning Columbus’s voyage to the America’s opening Spain(and the rest of Europe)’s eyes to how much they should care about human rights.
• Continue to the 16th century. Taking stops at Martin Luther’s *95 Theses* (how optimistic and impactful it was to the West), William Shakespeare (he wrote tragedies that reflected the times), Thomas More (bringing about the intrinsically optimistic “Utopia” type works), Michel Montaigne (popularizing essays), Christopher Marlowe (wrote Doctor Faust, which was my best example of the love of “magic” that the 16th century had).
• Summarize 16th century.
• Go into 17th century, explain what’s new.
• Stop by Miguel de Cervantes (Don Quixote)
• Cover the Enlightenment.
• Go back to the books and cover John Milton (last epic poem, Paradise Lost)
• Review 17th century.
• Now in the 18th century, cover how magic fell off and Christianity was beginning to be sidelined by Enlightenment thinkers.
• Cover Mandeville (Grumbling Hive), John Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress), Daniel Dafoe (Robinson Crusoe), Jonathan Swift (A Modest Proposal + Gulliver’s Travels) AND Voltaire (Candide)
• Review how much of a heavy hitter the 18th century was for me.
• Full Conclusion.

The End.

RPC Government 1B Essay #3: State Redistribution

In your opinion, does the state have the right to redistribute wealth from some people to others? Why or why not?

Greetings all! This week I have got myself a very short and simple (and sweet and stupendous etc.) assignment from my teacher Tom Woods: “In your opinion, does the state have the right to redistribute wealth from some people to others? Why or why not?”

In layman terms, I would have to say that the government/state does NOT have the right to redistribute, or spread out equally, the hard-earned goods and cash between the “rich” and “poor”. In these situations of “government redistribution” aka “halfsies”, it’s the middle class that suffers the most! On top of this, if the government made it so that people only get money from the state, and the state paid everyone the same, no one would willingly take up hard, high-paying (not anymore) jobs! (Like a doctor, lawyer or plumber) If a cashier and a tradesman got paid the same, the tradesman wouldn’t feel quite so fairly treated because his job requires *more* work and *more* knowledge.

RPC Government 1B Essay #2: Spooner, Positive Rights, Negative Rights

Discuss several of Spooner’s arguments against the idea that Americans have consented to their government in a meaningful way. Do you find Spooner persuasive? Why or why not?

Explain the difference between positive and negative rights, using at least one example.

Greetings all, back with another Government 1B essay!

The Anarchist Lysandre Spooner wrote several counteressays on John Locke’s concept of “Tasset Consent” (where, provided people are not protesting a government, they are consenting to being governed to the government’s systems through their inactivity). Spooner wrote thoroughly about how this was a foolish idea, here are a few of his arguments: If John Locke says that an individual is tasset consenting by traveling on government roads, did they have a choice to *not* drive on government roads? The only way for an individual to NOT give their tasset consent is to leave the country! Locke is being outrageous! Locke then argues that tasset consent works because it’s “convenient”, it’d be impossible to ask everyone in the country whether they do or do not consent to the government’s actions. Again, Lysandre Spooner argues back that in what sphere of life do we just *assume* that people consent to everything? People don’t consent to being mugged just because they hadn’t said whether or not you were allowed to pick through their pockets, so they shouldn’t be considered to be consenting to following government orders if it so happens, they were born in that country (and are living here because of how impossible it is to move). Spooner’s arguments are very persuasive to me, but mainly because I already know tasset consent would never work person-to-person, so it shouldn’t work person-to-state.

Next, what are “positive” and “negative” rights? Despite the name, negative rights are more important to freedom than their positive counterparts. A “negative” right is a right where *cannot* do things to you. You have a negative right to *not be killed*, so the “positive” version of that right would be “you have the right to be kept alive” (which you do not). People (and you) have no right to try murdering in others in their sleep, but people (and you) are not *required* to keep someone sick alive just because. (You might morally be required to keep someone dear to you alive, but it is all your choice) Another example of positive/negative rights is your negative property rights. People are not allowed to destroy your things or take your money if you don’t allow it, but you are not necessarily allowed to get free stuff.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #21: German Unification and the Second Industrial Revolution

Assignment: Answer the 2 following questions:

(2) What were the key steps in the process of German unification?

(3) Discuss the significance of two of the major innovations of the Second Industrial Revolution.

Greetings all! This week I’ve been learning about the Italian and German unification, the “Eastern question” (AKA the Crimean war and falling off of the Ottoman Empire) and the Second coming of the Industrial Revolution. Onwards!

The unification of Germany was a complex process that took place in the middle of the 19th century. It began with the leadership of Prussia under Otto von Bismarck, who led victorious campaigns against Denmark in 1864 and Austria in 1866, consolidating Prussian power. The kingdom of Prussia formed a Northern union with several small local German states “the North German Confederation”, leading to the Franco-Prussian war (galvanizing even more German states) and then ended in 1871 when The German Reich proclaimed. (the constitution for The German Empire being written out in March that year)

Next, what was significant about the Second Industrial Revolution? I would say most significant was the streamlining and of cheap, dependable steel. Refining machines and other new inventions improve quality and lower the cost of the process. Steel, rather than iron, make skyscrapers possible. Additionally, there was the growth of the Chemical industry, which lead to the creation of photo film, cellophane, plastics & colorful clothing.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #20: The Weaknesses of Marxism + The Views of Herbert Spencer.

(1) Discuss two weak points in the views of Karl Marx, and explain what’s wrong with them.

(2) What were Herbert Spencer’s views, as you encountered them in the reading for this week? Does he deserve to be called a “Social Darwinist”?

Hey everyone! Time for another Western Civ essay. This week I’ve been studying a small portion of “Social Darwinism”, and I’ve begun my learning about the concept of Marxism (by Karl Marx).

Now, my first weak point of Marxism is the labor theory of value. This presumption assumes that all objects of capital are worth the same. A t-shirt is equal in value to a cup of coffee. This is flawed because that simply IS NOT true. The rules of supply and demand make it impossible for everything to equal the same value, because of surpluses (on say, t-shirts) and scarcities (on coffee). He neglects the passing of time. ome, like the employers would rather make money by spending on a workers paycheck and good now, and gaining more money when the products sells, if the product sells at all, which is a risk. The worker is in turn trading labor for payment. As long as the worker and employer voluntarily make this transaction, it is not inherently exploitation as Marx deduces. The worker’s burden is labor, and the ‘capitalist’s’ burden is time exchange. People can value things differently, *Karl*! One person will value the other part of these exchanges.

Next, who was Herbert Spencer? Being an English polymath active as a philosopher and anthropologist, who lived from 1820 to 1903, he was a Libertarian smeared with the title of “social Darwinist”. He truly believed in the helping his fellow man, whereas the concepts of Social Darwinism would’ve let the weak and poor die out for “social progress”. He writes that the “desire to command is essentially a barbarous desire” because it “implies an appeal to force” and is immoral. History gave him the title of “Social Darwinist” simply because he was *most* focused with the ideals of free will and liberty from the state.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #18: 1830’s French Revolution + Marxism

Writing assignment: Answer two of the following questions.

(1) What happened in France during the Revolution of 1830?

(2) Were the Revolutions of 1848 successful or unsuccessful? Discuss two examples.

(3) Why did Karl Marx think socialism was superior to capitalism?

Greetings all! This week I’ve been continuing to learn about the revolutions of the 1800s.

First of all, what happened in France during the Revolution of 1830? King Charles X was making living conditions far worse and more unjust than the average for this time period. There was a transition of power from the House of Bourbon to the July Monarchy. Charles’s cousin Duke Louis Philip became king and Charles was deported for his actions. The significance of this event was the replacement of hereditary right to rule with the concept of popular sovereignty, aka “consent of the people”.

Karl Marx wrongly thought socialism was superior to capitalism because (in my opinion) he assumed humanity could do no good on their own and needed the government to run every aspect of a society’s economy. He thought socialism was the only way for there to be any quality of living for the whole population.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #18: Molinari, Utopia & Romanticist Works.

(1) Summarize the arguments either of Spencer or Molinari (whichever one you read this week).

(2) What was the basic message of the utopian socialists?

(3) What were the characteristics of romanticism? Give one example of romanticism and show how it embodies at least one of these characteristics.

Greetings all! This is my only essay of the week unfortunately. I am working on a term paper for my other Western course at the moment. This week I’ve been learning about the arts of Western Civilization during the 1800’s.

Who is “Molinari”? Gustave Molinari was a man who pushed forward the growth of laissez-faire economics and believed that the state should not interfere with the free market. He argued that the role of the state, when it comes to anything, should be limited to protecting individual rights and enforcing contracts. Molinari also believed that competition in a free market was influential in creating better service and cheaper prices.

What of the “Utopian Socialists”?, well these groups believed that any kind of in-equality, of any kind, was basically 100% evil, and should be “equalized” by the people in charge of society. They advocated for the replacement of private property with community property, and central planning. I hope I’ve explained the basic message enough.

Finally, the romanticists. What are their characteristics? Well, through and through-out the 1820’s there have been 150 definitions of romanticism, and many scholars question if the title is necessary anymore. But, when looking at Romantic art, music, literature, etc. It must be said there are some characteristics and themes that can be pointed out. Experiencing nature brought some of these artists a spiritual or religious feeling, compelling them to create art. A common misconception is that Romanticism is “against reason”, but this was, I argue, not the case. There is an emphasis on intellect and reason, but specifically the ‘intellect that feels’. The Romantics were interested in faraway places, culture, and ideas. They took inspiration from nature, Middle Ages, folk-art, -music, and -literature, national customs, and languages. Take for example, my reference picture here: “Liberty Leading the People”. It is evidently a metaphor for the triumph of the French people during the July Revolution of 1830, as painted by Eugene Delacroix. Liberty, of course, is not a woman, but in this painting the concept is displayed as a triumphant leader, or someone who has rallied the people together to stand against their enemies. (In this case, the French king Charles X)

RPC Western Literature II Essay #17: Robinson Crusoe (Theft of Coins)

Write 500 words on this: “Why did he take the coins off the ship?”

Greetings to all whom it may concern, these past weeks have been a good past few, and I have finished studying the famous Daniel Defoe book “Robinson Crusoe”, about a middle-class Englishman, who being headstrong, left his home in Europe to go to a life of sea.

Written in 1719, “Robinson Crusoe”, is about personal redemption and spiritual reformation. It is reminiscent of the parable of the prodigal son (from the Bible). We can see multiple times in the book of how Robinson Crusoe loses his fortune in the pursuit of another new adventure, accepting the consequences of his actions but never accepting them until near the end of the book. He never truly repents from his brash and/or risky behavior upon the high seas, and this ultimately results in his punishment and escalation of consequences climax with his marooning on a desert island.

Upon being stranded on a desert island in the middle of nowhere, he is (so-to-speak) forced to get his gear together. After several days of no sign of salvation (keeping himself sane and working by building a shelter) he scavenged the from the ruined ship for anything he can find (a large sum of “treasure” in fact). Among all the lost tools and resources, were the ships coins and doubloons, even though he argued they were in fact worthless to him, he still took the 36-pound sum to the island with him. This begs the question, “why did he take the coins off the ship?”. The correct explanation of course being that he is still in his old subconscious mainland mindset of greed.

Now even though I answered the question, I still have to, what happened to him because of taking said doubloons? After took all the supplies, he hunted animals and made better tools. A dangerous fever caused him to rethink his faith and reflect on his life. (He didn’t really reflect on the coins all that much)

This fever was the turning point of his life, as this was the moment, he decided that wealth was not really worth a darn if it risked his life so. During the phase of rebellion in which he had been living, he did not create any long-lasting interpersonal relationships or bonds with the other characters, other than threatening a slave boy to assist him, and conversing with crewmates. When he eventually escaped the island, he lost his intense need for coin and wealth.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #17: The Classical Liberalism One

(2) What is classical liberalism?

(3) Choose one of the works discussed in lesson 83 and explain how it reflects the principles of classical liberalism.

(4) Discuss several classical liberal themes that can be found in the work of Benjamin Constant.

Greetings all! I’ve been continuing to learn about the ideological progressions of Western Civilization, onto the assignment(s).

Classical liberalism is in stark contrast to modern liberalism. Nowadays known more commonly as libertarianism, it originated in the West with Universalist claims, most commonly natural rights. Classical liberalism advocated for separation of church and state, but not separation of religion and society. Classical liberalism was opposed to political plunder and government agencies. If you stole from your neighbor, of course it’s a crime, but if you had the government steal (aka “transfer”) from your neighbor for you, classical liberalism would argue that of course, that is steal stealing! They argued that the development of human personality and expression comes from private ownership and is destroyed by a controlled dictatorship. You can essentially boil classical liberalism to limiting government (it’s still there, and only around to protect your personal property from others) and individual liberties.

Now, during lesson 83 I read an essay by French liberal write Frederic Bastiat titled: “The Petition of Candlemakers”. It is used as a point in defense of capitalism. Suppose all candlemakers would gather together and protest against the competition of the sun. The sun, they would argue, gives off free light to all people during the day. So, they make a petition to the government to make it illegal for people to have open windows during the day for sunlight to illuminate their houses. This type of law would protect the candlemakers against the LITERAL competition of the sun. Well obviously, everyone would agree that this sounds ridiculous. However, Bastiat uses a ridiculous example such as this to put pressure on the fallacies of competition. He compares it to the way the government blocks foreign competition by setting extremely high import taxes to stimulate only domestic trade. Bastiat’s solution to this problem is a free market economy, where everyone is free to buy, sell, and trade whatever goods they want from anywhere.

Lastly, what of Benjamin Constant? Born in 1767 and died in 1830, he was a Franco-Swiss political thinker, activist and writer on political theory and religion.
He presented the reasons for liberty. Unlike popular opinion, he writes that happiness is not a unique end and reason. Instead, liberty is for more than that simple concept, for the development and enrichment of personality. We should be allowed to make decisions to improve ourselves without force from the government as that would not make us better people. He presents problems which he sees with the current political approach. Beginning with how legislator’s mistakes effect the whole population their decisions cover. Legislators are not as personally affected by the consequences of their laws, so they’ll have less motivation to correct them. Individual decision making is more tailored to personal needs and goals.

RPC Government 1A Essay #17: The Difference Between State Churches & State Schools

Write 500 words on this topic: “Is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools?”

Greetings to all reading, this week I have continued to learn about state subsidies (state handouts). Today, my teacher Gary North has assigned me to tell if there is a different between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools(?). This is (in my personal opinion) a very easy question to answer, so without any further ado’s, to the assignment.

In our relationships between state and private life, Libertarian or freedom-focused philosophers are both in agreement when it is said that the church and state. Before the Reformation and in certain areas after the Reformation, the church was not only exempt from taxation, but the clergy was given taxpayer money by the state in a form of tithe-like tax. (Nowadays, in the modern era this is evidently not present) Up until the year 1833 (In Massachusetts of all places, mad credit) did any state or nation government actually abolish the practice of state subsidized churches. (State subsidized churches had been surprisingly prevalent in the United States up until that point around 1833. This very much showed how superior in authority the United States government had on the churches.) In stark parallel, state-subsidized education (or schools) is still the norm in the U.S. (and most of the entire world). In the U.S. it became ratified in 1837, just 4 years after the first state abolished the practice on churches! Like compulsory state education, state churches could require attendance which would violate religious freedoms, making religion a tool for spreading government-endorsed messages, instead of a wonderful body of believers.

Authority is known to always come from whoever pays the bills, sends the funding and “keeps the lights running” in life. Whether it be a school or a church, the government is in control when supplying them funds, and have a very legitimate say in what they are paying for. Now here is where I appeal my answer to the assignment. There is no difference between a state-run church and a state-run school (in principles). Money is turned over from the taxpayers’ pockets when the government creates subsidized institutions. The taxpayer in question does not necessarily agree with the worldview being taught in either institution. While in churches it is openly so, we all know that schools just can’t be neutral, that would be impossible. The purpose of the state-run education system is to teach conformity. The fundamental issue is state control over an area of personal liberty, such as education or religion.

What about vouchers? I would say they are a semi-marketing scheme that can only be present in a scenario of state-subsidized schools. Political plunder is simply ever-present. The problem with this coercive funding of education is that the learner’s parents get little to no voice in their children’s education or to whom their money goes, and it is the same with state-subsidized churches, but in the form of coercive funding of religion.
In conclusion, when the state subsidizes churches, they simply become a new government-run school run for indoctrinating the free citizen. (Even if the government is trying to do so.)

RPC Government 1A Essay #16: FDR’s 4 Freedoms

Write 500 words on this topic: “Did all four of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms promote liberty?

Greetings and salutations to all whom it concerns, this week, my teacher Gary North, has instructed me to cover the political concepts of the 32nd president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s, “Four Freedoms”. But what are his Four Freedoms, and what do they mean? Well, let us get to it!

First of all, The Four Freedoms Speech was given on January 6, 1941.

Roosevelt’s hope was to provide a rationale for why the United States should abandon the isolationist policies that emerged out of WWI. The speech coincided with the introduction of the Lend-Lease Bill, which promoted Roosevelt’s plan to become the “arsenal of democracy” and support the Allies (mainly the British) with much-needed supplies. This would also become the basis for the United States’ involvement in the 2nd World War, all framed in terms of individual liberties and rights that are the “hallmark of United States politics”. Here is the speech:
“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.”–*Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941

Now as we could all see, F.D.R. was a man (a president?) very progressive for his era, very giving when it came to government handouts (for example, his New Deal), in his Four Freedoms we see this mainly through the “freedom from want”. I do not believe all of his freedoms are actual human rights/liberties. The 1st freedom, freedom of speech is ESSENTIAL to a free society, and his 2nd freedom, freedom “of every person to worship God in his own way”, aka freedom of religion, is ALSO essential to a free society, but as expressed earlier, his 3rd freedom, freedom of want, is completely unessential (even negative, to a free society). There’s no such thing as a free lunch, even if the government is giving it to you (and by that, they’re forcing someone else to make the lunch and give it to you, so to speak. Not a free society!).
4th is the freedom from fear, which depending on how you define the word “armaments” can be or can’t be essential. If armaments mean a country’s military force, yes, we can all be a very happy society having to live without the government’s big “beating sticks” to tell each other what to do. If armaments mean individual weapons (guns) then no, we cannot have a free society without armaments. If the government can ban your right to bear arms, they A) remove your right to defend yourself, and B) non-law-abiding citizens, aka criminals, are allowed to terrorize you anyway because they don’t care that guns have been banned.

*credit to wikipedia

RPC Western Civ II Essay #16: Nineteenth-Century Progressions

Writing assignment: Answer three of the following questions:

(1) According to Deirdre McCloskey, why do some of the traditional explanations for Western prosperity fail, and what in her view is the major, unique ingredient that accounts for it?

(2) What were the major principles guiding the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna? (this one)

(3) What were the Carlsbad Decrees? (this one)

(4) According to Rothbard, did compulsory state education emerge because governments simply wanted their people to become more knowledgeable, or were there other motivations at work? (this one)

Hello, and greetings to all my readers! (If you are all still on this site anymore) This week I’ve been studying up on my political progressions of European (& Western) civilization in the 19th and 18th century. Onwards!

Now, from 1814-1815, The Congress of Vienna was a series of international diplomacy meetings to discuss/agree upon on the possible new layout for Europe’s new political scene. Creating security, legitimacy, the balance of power, and compensating certain countries were the main major principles guiding all those at the Congress.

The Carlsbad Decrees were a set of reactionary (as in, to counter the progressive movements of the era) restrictions introduced in the states of the German Confederation by resolution of the Bundesversammlung* on 20 September 1819 after a conference held in the spa town of Carlsbad, Austrian Empire. They covered conservative orders over Student Organizations, The Press, and the abilities to Investigate Committees.

Now, according to Murray Rothbard, the growth of state education emerged from the (not only) the good intentions of the officials of government wanting to spread knowledge. The specific interest actually came in promoting Calvinism and Lutheranism, pushed by their founders. Take for example, the Martin Luther school foundation in Germany, which was utilized to force a very particular view of the Bible (leaving little room for the individual learner’s interpretation).

*Yes, that’s a real name.

RPC Government 1A Essay #15: The Remnant/”When Pigs Fly”

Write 500 words on this topic: “Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later? Why or why not?”

Greetings all! This week I have been continuing my reading of the book “The Freedom Philosophy” (written in 1988), where I’ve been learning all about how our culture affects our freedom. Without much further ado, I will be moving us down to the assignment.

What is a remnant? Described in chapter 13 (written by author Albert J Nock) of “The Freedom Philosophy”, The Remnant is a character, either a singular person or group of people, who are easily defined as the “leftovers”. When members of society become considered lost, old or forgotten (irrelevant to anyone who’s anyone). In opposition to this, the “masses” are seen as the dull majority (with little to no intelligent or moral compass when it comes to life.) Interestingly, the Remnant has a significant increase in ethics than the Masses, according to chapter 13 anyway. Here’s a Biblical look at it:
In the book of the Bible “Isaiah”, The Lord appointed Isaiah to take care of the Remnant which needs protection and publicity. It is explained (by The Lord) that they are the ones who will be establishing the society of the future and need his encouragement. At the moment (in the Bible, and now as well), the Remnant is scattered far and wide, in a state of disarray, despite their message’s and knowledge’s importance to the future of society as we know it (Isaiah is not depicting the Remnant quite positively). It must be stated that, Isaiah never preached his prophecies and wisdom from God to the Masses, but to gather the Remnant together and reaffirm them their status, their goal and their duties.

Looking away from Biblical viewpoints, there is a metaphorical probability that the Remnant of one generation could become the next gen’s majority. (Or at least similarly, their works or literature pieces could influence and shape the majority of the next era) It’s possible! But like that saying: ‘when pig’s fly’, it will not likely ever happen. One generation could certainly be a Renaissance of the Remnant’s teaching (as above, their literature), but historically, the Remnant has never been more than a minority. They have always been defined as THE minority when it comes to the retelling of Earth’s timeline. No philosopher or prophet could succeed on making their remnant the majority of the next era.

Chapter 13 of “The Freedom Philosophy”, with its Biblical analogy, states it is very possible for the Remnant to be the majority of the future, but this has not been the case in all of history, so I cannot help but find it highly unlikely. Maybe next era, perhaps? Yeah right, that’ll be when pig’s fly.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #15: Industrial Revolution, & Its Consequences

(1) What, in a nutshell, was the Industrial Revolution?

(2) What was the standard-of-living debate?

(3) What were the different arguments that combined in Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country’s overseas colonies

Greetings all! Welcome to this week’s RPC Western Civilization essay! (Hope you enjoy)

Now, “in a nutshell”, the Industrial Revolution was a period of time starting in the 1760’s and ending somewhere in the 1830’s. It is a revolution due to how sweeping its changes were for the era. During this period, many inventions were created and manufactured in *factories* (another product of the Industrial Revolution), to be sold en masse all about the country. The human economy moved toward more widespread, efficient and stable manufacturing processes. Poor folk gained an increased standard of living due to more-readily available (if not mildly deadly) work at said factories.

Speaking of the factory workers, this is a great transition to the “Standard-of-living” debate! Pessimists argued that there were no marked improvements caused by the industrial revolution, while their opponents argued that there was certainly a marked increase in the quality-of-life for those who had to work the factories to eat their bread. Eventually an agreement was made over the standard-of-living debate (of the Industrial Revolution era) that there *was* an increase in quality-of-life.

Now, what about arguments against slavery during this era in Britain? Natural Rights arguments! (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) Humanitarian arguments upped the public’s want for slaves to have better treatment. The economic aspects to the slave trade went for the abolishment of slaver, due to how the free market could prosper if slavery was done for. The arguments against the number of deaths caused by slavery. All these arguments coming together (along with intellectuals like Tomas Clarkson doing extensive research) led to the public questioning the senior institution of slavery in favor of a new world without the slave trade.

RPC Western Literature II Essay #15: Mandeville’s “The Grumbling Hive” & The Seeds of Darwinism

Write 500 words on this: “In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism?”

Hello! I’ve got a few questions for you. What is the meaning of Darwinism? WHO’s Mandeville? (What kind of question is this for anyone who’s not Gary North, teaching me about these topics, or any of his students? Bit of a tangent, sorry.) Well today, allow me to explain these topics to you!

What of Darwinism. Easily summed up as “Survival of the Fittest”, is a theory that all progress of biological life on Earth (and possibly other planets) comes from how whatever survives a disaster learns to adapt for future generations and expand, while those who don’t simply die out.

Next, of Mandeville. Bernard Mandeville was a 17th century philosopher and writer most known for his very influential poem, “The Grumbling Hive” (more popularly known as “The Fable of the Bees”), published in 1705. In “the Bees”, he uses a hive of grumbling bees as a parallel to society. Honesty, free speech and justice aren’t seen as necessary to Mandeville (for a functioning “hive”). He explores this concept by displaying how the bees stated that their hive, their society, was full of crooks, scammers, schemers and unethical practices, and, once they called on the power of “Jove” (their god?) to remove all these negative vices, they realized the free market they relied on could not thrive without vices, due to the fact that their society COLLAPSED. These ideas of un-designed social evolution would pave the way for what can be defined as unconventional, political and theoretical views like (as an example) Darwinism. (Nowadays, “Survival of the Fittest” is taken as the norm for how many countries govern)

Mandeville displayed a foundation of Darwin’s theories of evolution via his concept of natural selection in the bee’s hive. The goal all pro-evolution arguers are to explain the order of the world, WITHOUT any divine planners or reliable universal code). To evolution’s ideas, the world serves zero purpose in the end of things. Where did Mandeville get this idea before Darwin? Likely from Scottish-enlightenment thinkers. (Because they ALSO inspired Darwin) In “the Bees”, Mandeville is displaying how much he wishes to turn against the free-market philosophies of men like Frederick Bastiat (or later Adam Smith), of how things unseen-such as: the destination of unspent money or the “invisible” hand. Mandeville thought unseen-expenses and earnings would be used by individuals to spend on vices and ignored that unseen earnings could be used on virtuous expenses instead.

I would mention the phrase “society is the product of human action, not human design’ applies Bernard Mandeville’s poem “The Grumbling Hive” very well. Darwinism is defined by the absence of any creator or manager. With Mandeville’s poem (laced with the seeds of Darwinism’s ideas) gaining such popularity during its time, it is no guess to state that not only did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism, but he paved the way for its acceptance as well. Hope you enjoyed reading this essay.

RPC Government 1A Essay #14: Free Market Choice VS Welfare State Choice

Write 250 words on this topic: “Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state?”

Greetings to everyone reading this essay! This week I have continued reading The Freedom Philosophy for my Government 1A class, and my assignment this week from the wonderful Gary North (RIP) is to beg the question, “Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state?” (Such an interesting topic I know).

Now, what does this question refer to? Well, because people (all of us) are unique in their desires and skills, we all need the right of personal choice (or else are differences become detrimental to the machine of the state). I would answer this question by stating that the free market provides and promotes greater personal responsibility, due to the personal choice that is granted to every man and woman in the free market. The welfare state redistributes the wealth and property of people through legal theft (arguing it is what’s best for society) and stating it’s for the “greater good”. By producing nothing of its own, it removes the right of choice, because if the all – powerful state is allowed to say: “I’m the good guy, not a crook”, take my money, and give it to a “poor” people group (that I might’ve chosen to support in a free market), I made zero choices! Welfare states also mess with the rights to work (and to not work). Think about vagrancy laws, how they arrest the unemployed.

With the free market we are granted the choice to roll up sleeves and find something to put ourselves to use, because how else will we make our livelihoods? (The welfare state will “provide”?)

RPC Government 1A Essay #13: Freedom Philosophy

Write 250 words on this topic: “Is the state the source of human rights?”

Greetings to everyone reading this essay (except Edmund. You know what you did.)! This week I have begun reading The Freedom Philosophy by Frank Chodorov. Discussing human rights and their sources, Chodorov brings forward two ideas to the source of human rights. 1) Human rights come from a Creator who gifted us this inherent concept that can never be taken away. Or 2) To submit to the fact that the State or government grants us our rights, and that they may have the power to take it away. Chodorov does not mention a third alternative. (So, it is up to you to choose which street you walk, so-to-speak.)

I personally do not believe that the state gave us our rights. Its original purpose (compared to whatever it is up to now) was to protect people and their private property from each other and their theft, fraud, or violence that they could cause. (Not to be the ones to bestow human rights)

Rights have to have come from something other than the state, and the only other option is a Creator. Regardless of whether you believe there be a Divine Sovereign and that you were bestowed inalienable human rights, the state absolutely did not grant you any rights. Why? Because the state also did not provide you with your existence, and you don’t have to credit it for that. Adding on to this, the State should have no power to take away said rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

TLDR: Hold the individual responsible for his actions and how he mishandles his (and others) human rights, and don’t credit the state for said rights.

RPC Western Literature II Essay #13: The Motive of Satan’s Rebellion

Write 500 words on this: “After Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false?”

Greetings to all whom it would concern! This week for my Western Literature studies I have in fact been reading the very long and “epic” poem written by John Milton, known as “Paradise Lost”. Its story? Of the events concerning the Biblical casting away from Heaven by God, (that Satan had before he became a devil) and the events leading up to how he would corrupt Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.
Now after his casting out of Heaven, Satan (with an intense need to get back at God) breaks out of Hell’s chains, and at that point he decided he would try corrupting Adam and Eve into falling from their respective titles of God’s garden friends. The one problem being that Uriel (the guardian angel) is blocking the gates, so Satan first transforms into a cherub to sneak past him, and once inside the garden, he transforms into various angels to avoid Uriel’s suspicions (ultimately settling on the form of a snake, his most iconic symbol), he wasn’t the most successful however, and Uriel alerted the angels!

This is a bit of a tangent but, story-wise this feels like Greek myth and not Biblical theology.
Now, Satan proceeded to corrupt (in the form of a snake) Eve, and then Adam, with the Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (he convinced her in Paradise Lost that eating the Fruit allowed him, a “snake”, the ability to speak. “Imagine what the Fruit could do for you?” he basically offers her), and he of course, succeeded in corrupting Eve eventually, with Adam’s love for her taking him along the way. God then found out and punished them by setting their lives from immortal to mortal, he cast them out of the Garden of Eden into the cold unforgiving regular Earth and gave Eve the burden of childbirth, and the second-hand status that would bring.

Now I would personally state the Satan was jealous of God in his actions. Cast out of heaven due to his very pride, all of his actions even as an angel have been out of jealousy (the distinction between jealousy and envy is very small, due to being synonyms, but jealousy being about the concern that YOU don’t have enough, and the person you are jealous of does have enough. In this situation Satan was jealous of God for his “possession” of penultimate power)
In his lashing out of jealous desire, Satan lost it all, and became the first fallen angel, doomed to hell and only able to torment the last of Gods previously perfect creation, humans, that would be soon sent throughout the Earth.

It is an epic piece of poetry, “Paradise Lost”, and definitively known as the last “true” epic poem, especially with the dramatic ironies within.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #13: The 1st Three Years of the French Revolution, & the Church in Napoleon’s Time

(2) How would you summarize the principles of the French Revolution in its first three years?

(4) What was the situation of the Church in France after Napoleon came to power?

Hi all! This week for the Ron Paul Curriculum, I’m learning about the French Revolution (and a small portion of Napoleon’s rise to power after the troubling times of said revolution) Now, it’s time for my assignments!

How would *I* summarize the principles of the French Revolution in its first 3 years? Chaotic, radical and heavily (in my opinion) convoluted. The common people who had raised up against the politically powerful nobility during this time of radical changes, the voting system was changed to be more open to the public, every change being influenced heavily by the Enlightenment era earlier. The French also began to ponder whether it be reasonable to hold onto tradition at all, and they questioned *all* authority strongly.

Now, after Napoleon took to the throne after the deposing of Robespierre and the continuing of the Reign of Terror’s chaos, he made plenty of changes to France to more optimize the peace of the nation. Including some changes (that he didn’t wasn’t necessarily even responsible for himself, just the shifting of the time). Now, in 1801 there was an agreement made on July 15th between Napoleon Bonaparte and the Papal and clerical representatives from Rome and Paris, and it defined and ended the status of the breach caused by countless church reforms/confiscations during the previous revolutions.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #12: Enlightened Absolutism & Colonial Disputes (AKA Another Boring Title)

Write on the following:

(1) What was “enlightened absolutism”?

Welcome to my latest essay! This week I’ve been studying about the concept of “enlightened absolutism” and (very quickly) the American Revolution.

First, what of “Enlightened Absolutism”? During the 16th century, monarchs were known as Absolutists, meaning they believed that they were supposed to be 100% in control of their domains. Enlightened Absolutes were those same monarchs, but they also endorsed the ideology of the Enlightenment Era, in the name of progress and more efficiency of rule. They tolerated other religions like Islam but had a worse opinion of “unproductive” religions, like the monasteries of Christianity.

Now, what of the apparent constitutional dispute between the 13 colonies and British government? The 13 colonies *had* written laws and had been supporting themselves up to this point in time (the 1760’s). The British acknowledged the colonists’ rights when it came to deciding things for themselves, but still decided that because they were the Motherland, they would be the ones to govern. In 1764, with the Sugar Act increasing foreign tariffs with everyone to the Colonists *but* England, the colonists had a bit of a breaking point. (Taxes were for earning the government money, tariffs were distinctly for influencing the directions of trade)

The British wanted to control where the colonists got their food and drink from, and used the tariffs to attempt control throughout the 18th century until the colonists had too much, and by then the American revolution was to come.

RPC Government 1A Essay #12: Should Criminals Get Better Sentences?

Write 500 words on this topic: “Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals? Explain.”

Greetings all! This week I have finished my reading of Richardson’s “What Makes You Think We Read the Bills?” and my assignment today is simple. Using what knowledge, I’ve gained from reading my assigned books, I will determine whether criminals should pay restitution to victims instead of spending jail sentences.
Now, in his book, Richardson brought up some of the new language we use in our political systems. Take for example, “Crimes against society”. In a crime that is “against society” the fine paid by the criminal is sent to the state, but while the criminal is in the state-run prison, it is the same society paying for the criminal’s food and shelter. (Via taxpayer money) We (the society) lose the most when criminals are allowed to just spend time in prison, in a sense.

It should be known that restitution (when the offender pays the victim) for the victim and penalty for the criminal are ideas fundamental to the concept of law. It is known in history that Jewish and Christian nation’s laws were basing their punishments by having the criminal go directly to their victim and pay them off in some way. It should be known that biblically, the criminals who couldn’t pay restitution would instead have to provide a service for (an agreed) amount of time. Clearly! This model of governing the law was more effective than our current concepts of criminal justice.
It should also be known that the current justice system is ineffective at rehabilitating the criminals! If anything, incarceration teaches the criminals to get better at what their crafts. If the criminal hadn’t been locked away to stew, if they had just paid the fine, they could learn their “lesson” quickly with little expense to the rest of “society”.

Incarceration should be the last resort (besides execution being a last resort) when it comes to punishment. (As it has been in history) Minor crimes of theft and burglary should not have the heavy punishment of incarceration, compared to something more serious, like for example, attempted kidnapping. The victim was found and alive of course, and only mentally shooketh. Should the criminal pay their fine to the state or to the victim first? If the first option, that would mean they were sent to prison, but if the second option, the criminal is responsible for themself and to the victim.
My real point is that ultimately, incarceration should not be necessary, but is required sometimes. The punishment should always fit the crime to keep individuals responsible. Prisons are funded but often result into becoming violence hubs and ineffective wastes of money.

RPC Western Literature II Essay #11: Shakespeare or KJV?

Writing assignment: Write 500 words on this: “Is it easier to read Shakespeare or the King James Bible?”

Greetings all, this week (or should I say last week, tardy!) I have been reading the King James Version (or KJV) of the Bible for my Western Literature class. Mainly due to the fact that the KJV Bible has been so impactful to Western Literature (and civilization as a whole), and how dynamic its writing, its language, is known to be. Today I shall be covering my opinion on whether the KJV was easier to read than Shakespeare (in this instance, the play Julius Caesar). Now for some backstory, the KJV was a translation created over a time period of 1604 to 1611 (7 years. Although it did have small amendments through the year until the early 18th century). The KJV and Shakespeare (who died in 1616) are both from about the same time period, and their “languages” are also shared when it comes to dialect.

Now, let us answer the question. I do not feel nor see or have any difference in language between the works of the KJV and Shakespeare. They both portray the same etiquette and symbolism, and both use the same “difficult” grammar to portray their beautiful tales. I could feel it is easier to read the KJV (due to being more familiar with the Bible then Shakespeare) however, especially given its last update in 1769 gave it slightly more modern language (it is still the same “thy”‘s and “verily”‘s however).

Shakespeare’s “leg-up” (or perhaps its weakness?) on the KJV is that you are supposed to be watching it, not reading it necessarily, while the KJV is not supposed to be acted out on stage (never was intended to). Nay, I would rather state they are both equal challenges to read (although, not truly difficult for myself) on the fact that the English language is constantly changing in slang and style. The English of the 1500s/1600s is a strange world compared to that of modern day. Both of these important collective works of Yonder are both excellent in their own ways.

RPC Government 1A Essay #11: Group Voting Time

Write 250 words on this topic: “Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong?”

Greetings all! This week for the Ron Paul Curriculum’s first government course, I have continued to read Richardson’s “What makes you think we read the bills?”. It is a very intriguing book, and I would like to say that I agree with what I have learned. My assignment today is to ask if the group of a legislator’s district that elect him, are allowed to “change their mind” so to speak, and attempt electing someone else.
First of all, what is a legislator? In an ideal world, a legislator represents the people of their district so that they may vote in their supporters’ best interests. (This is of course, not always the case. The world is not ideal, because their philosophies won’t perfectly match their supporters)

So, what could be considered “wrong” in these cases? Perhaps if he (the legislator) promised during his election run that he would increase the amount of police and firefighting support in the area, but does the opposite, he would be voting “wrong”? (Due to the fact that he did the opposite of what he promised)
In my opinion, a group that IS NOT associated with the elected official should be monitoring the legislator, to keep things fair and balanced. If the legislator went against what his group feels is wrong, the group is free to vote on others.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #11: Materialism, Louis XV & Invisible Hands

(1) Explain the views of the French materialists.

(2) What does Adam Smith mean by the “invisible hand”?

(3) On what grounds have historians argued that King Louis XV damaged France as well as the cause of absolute monarchy?

This week for the 11th grade Ron Paul Curriculum Western Civilization course, I’ve been studying reviews on 18th century Europe, about the War of Austrian Succession and on the royals and ideologies that were certainly formed during this era.

First, what of the French materialists? During the 18th century, a movement of Atheists was formed, who believed that all of existence was nothing but simple stuff. ITEMS, robots perhaps. They also said that any misgivings committed by humans (as well as free will as a whole) is caused by “chemical imbalances”. The point of life, to materialists of the era, was that we should just experience as much physical pleasure as possible. (Not a very bright world)

Now, who was Adam Smith? He was a Scottish Economist + Philosopher, who pioneered economics and capitalism. The “Invisible Hand” is about how we as humans, subconsciously help others *because* of our self-interest, and not despite our self-interest. Due to the fact that a free market will mean us selling our services to others will result in equal or better payoff.

Finally, on King Louis XV of France. Overall, we believe he ultimately damaged France on account of all the historical accounts of corruption in his courts, an embarrassing control of himself, multiple draining wars (as well as his over-eagerness to use his armies on bloody conflicts), all while producing small gain. This poor showmanship on how to run a country is believed to have severely damaged the reputation of absolutism.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #10: The Earth Isn’t the Center of the Universe, the Ideas of the Enlightenment, and Leonhard Euler.

(1) What was the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe, and how did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton undermine it and institute an alternative?

(3) Explain the significance of the person you read about for Lesson 48 in 100 words.

(4) Describe the main ideas we associate with the Enlightenment.

Hi all! This week I’ve been reading about the Enlightenment, a time known for its scientific and philosophic advancements.

The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe states that all the planetary bodies are perfectly round spheres that revolve around the Earth. The Earth being justified as the center of the universe, despite the planets having erratic movements, by adding epicenters here and there on his theoretical map. The 4 scientists mentioned in the prompt all helped introduce the theory that the planet revolves around the sun, whether it be through Kepler stating the planets’ paths were ovular not circular, or Galileo and his advanced telescopes proving that the planets are not perfect spheres, but have hills and imperfections

My important person I chose to study this week is Leonhard Euler. Born in Switzerland on April 15th, 1707, he was a Swiss mathematician, physicist, geographer, logician, and engineer. (That’s quite a lot of work he did in his life, which ended in 1783)
Why is he significant? He is responsible for the creation of graph theory and topology. Why are those important? Because without graph theory, it would be very difficult to find anything to fill its role in electrical modeling and electric networking. Meanwhile topology is important for its role in understanding how all shapes are effectively squashed and stretched versions of another, and this field of mathematics aids the framework for understanding complex computing systems. (Quite a lot of difficult language there, I’ll admit)

What are the main ideas of the enlightenment (at least what we assume about it) are most commonly known to be these:

1. The value of a human’s happiness, their freedom, and humanity’s progress
2. The rejection of traditions, superstitions, and authorities that slow the progression of human development
3. And, the ideals of natural law, liberty, constitutional government, and the separation of church and state.

That, I believe, is all. Thank you for reading!

RPC Government 1A Essay #10: Should I NOT Be Allowed to Make Videos of Politicians? (At Open Meetings)

Write 250 words on this topic: “Should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting?”

Greetings all! This week I have begun reading (the former senator) H.L Richardson’s “What Makes You Think We Read The Bills?”, which, like its aptly named title, is Richardson’s book where he talks about how common people are delusional with their expectations on politicians, and how politicians use some nifty tricks (like the “thinker stare” when someone they find annoying is talking to them in public) to have a more leisurely time deciding the fate of the country.

Now, I believe that the police should NOT be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making videos of them if they are in a public meeting. Why, you ask? Because of rights the citizens of the US are entitled to due to the First Amendment, to freedom of speech and the press. Politicians do not have any justified reason to hide their statements and ideas from the public, unless they have something to hide from said public. (And if the situation is an open meeting, it should be OPEN, should it not?)

The politician is allowed to request they not be recorded, and in that situation, any listeners who want to comply are allowed to, but, when the politician involves police and forces the public to quit recording (against their will).

If a politician REALLY did not wish to be recorded, they could simply skip out on the open meeting, could they not? (If not suffering a loss of publicity in their campaign) Being put on the spotlight of a public speaker is a difficult role, but it has to be this way if the politician is trying to truthfully server their country.

RPC Government 1A Essay #9: Labor Laws Do More Harm Than Good

Pick any chapter in How to Argue, and write 250 words on this: “How could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder?”

Greetings all! This is my last essay I shall be writing for the collection of arguments known as “Cliches of Socialism” or “How to Argue with a Liberal”. Today, my teacher simply asked me to pick a chapter of the book and figure out for myself how an individual/group of individuals working together could solve one of its problems with voluntary arrangements, instead of plundering politics of the state.

I would like to cover chapter 40, which covers a supposedly interesting dilemma. Quote: “Without legislation, we’d still have child labor and sweatshop conditions.” Now, how do I disprove that? After all, the USA had a history of child labor and sweatshop conditions during the industrial revolution, did it not? Well, the simple truth was and is, is that the legislators of the US were powerless to do anything to stop the injustice (and so was Mao Zedong with his Red China, or Fidel Castro, Nasser). If such a miracle solution to preventing factory life was possible, like some sort of magic switch, every dictator would pull said switch. Why are women and children no longer working long, dawn-to-dusk 6-day work weeks in the factories? The same reason young, strong working men aren’t. There is an easier standard of living and attainment of tools due to personal savings and investments.

In Agrarian societies, everyone is supported by the work they work for, and there is much work to be done due to high infant mortalities and low lifespans of the society’s high population. When people begin saving their resources for accumulation, better tools are made, and life’s struggle is eased – resulting in industry. Savings are not accrued merely overnight however, so the early stage of this industrialization is also the ugliest (sweatshops). Take for example, India. If the Indian government were to ban child labor (and provided, it could 100% follow through), millions would starve.

So, must be done? People must accrue their resources, so later on society’s standard of living is higher, and then we won’t actually need everyone to work in sweatshops. How will people accrue their resources is up to them, they could work in the factories, or they could figure out a problem many people (local or on a larger scale) have and create a product or service that solves said problem and make money off of that.

In conclusion, labor laws are not the cause of improved living, but most likely to lead to more and more “welfare” legislation.

RPC Western Literature II Essay #8: What’s Done ISN’T Done!

Writing assignment: write 500 words on this: “Was Lady Macbeth correct? ‘What’s done is done.'”

Greetings all! This is my 8th essay for the Ron Paul Curriculum’s Western Literature II course. This week I have been reading William Shakespeare’s classic tragedy, Macbeth. It is quite a dark tale of the titular Macbeth, a general who murders his king and his comrades. However, something I have learned from my great teacher Gary North is that Macbeth is not the real main character of the story, but his wife (who is also the real mastermind behind the murders) Lady Macbeth is the true lead. Today I will be explaining to you whether Lady Macbeth is correct in her famous quote she states throughout the plays: “What’s done is done.”

Now, with the quote “What’s done is done.”, Lady Macbeth is, of course, referring to the murders her husband committed. She is stating to him that the past is history and there is no going back any longer. (This is technically true. No one in Scotland nor England, barring perhaps the 3 witches in the play, could possibly resurrect the ghosts of the King, or Banquo, Macbeth’s friend) In terms of moral standpoint, “What’s done is done.” is technically untrue, she could have confessed to her participating in the murders, and seek atonement (or at least quit while she’s ahead, and stop having Macbeth kill any and all potential witnesses).

I’d also like to mention, that I should hop back a little bit to one of my tangents. I mention “witches” in the tale because the 1600’s was surprisingly intrigued with the concept of hexes and witchcraft. Shakespeare wove his play from a historical account that mentioned sprites to a fantasy heavily featuring three witches tampering with the political landscape of England, mainly by informing Macbeth of future visions, such as, of him being king of England. Speedily catching on with Macbeth’s plans (mainly by reading up on his letters. Just like to mention women in that era had a near impossible chance of being able to read, so it’s a little interesting Shakespeare made her literate.), Lady Macbeth gets much more involved with the concept of murder than him, (being the actual one behind the plan) and even considers Macbeth too “unmanly” to go through with anything. (She’ll certainly convince him later!) All her immoral deeds at this point sprout from this assumption of her husband not being a total “alpha male”, so at the point where 0 murders have actually been enacted, she is somewhat morally solid.

After the killings of the king and Duncan (Macbeth’s friend), Lady Macbeth begins to see bloody spots on her hands (that only she can see), and it torments her into insomnia, possibly driving her mad. This is around the time that she begins stating “What’s done is done”, to prevent her husband (and more likely, herself) from worry. But oh, she is WRONG. Every murder they’ve committed comes back to haunt them, either through legitimate witnesses, to inquiring investigators and even GHOSTS (17th century witchcraft fascination), not even counting the recurring insanity!

She may have thought she got away with murder, and that “What’s done is done.”, but while she might’ve been correct in some respects, where she was wrong would (literally) haunt her till she died.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #8: Merchants, Edicts and Wars, Oh My!

Answer three of the following questions.

(1) What were the key ideas of mercantilism?

(2) How was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes justified in the document you read?

(3) What were the causes and outcomes of the wars involving France in the latter half of the seventeenth century?

(4: What was at stake in the War of Spanish Succession? I’m not doing this one)

Greetings all! I am back from my vacation to write up another essay from my great RPC Western Civ course I’m studying. There’s quite a bit to cover so let’s get started!

So, what is Mercantilism, what are its’ key ideas? It is an economic system that is often associated with absolutism (Although absolutism is not always required for this). IT IS the opposite of a free market, however, where individuals use their own decisions to buy and sell. You see, Mercantilism is opposing to free market economics by the fact that it involves heavy government intervention, planned tariffs, regulations, subsidies, prohibitions of trade and import tax. It makes a country treat the economy like its own war front between countries, rather than let individuals make their own lifestyles.

Now, the Edict of Nantes was written by King Henry the Great in 1598. It was stated that the reason it was allowed its powers was to relieve tension between the two forces of Catholicism and Protestantism. Louis the XIV (the man responsible for the Revocation. He was the king of France at the time) argued that because almost all of France had converted from Protestantism to Catholicism, the Edict was now obsolete.

The causes of the wars involving France, in the latter half of the seventeenth century were, like their outcomes, quite simple and a little sad. The king Louis XIV (the longest reigning ruler of any recorded nation) was driven by his personal ambitions and a desire to enhance France, and his, glory. He fought 5 expensive and large-scale wars:

1. War of Devolution (against the HRE)
2. The Dutch War
3. War of the Reunions (somewhat of an assault from all sides, between France, Spain, the HRE, and Genoa.)
4. The Nine Years’ War
5. And, The War of Spanish Succession

These wars resulted in varied triumph, France would come out of the Dutch war a world power but would eventually fall back to the world’s stage eventually, mainly through an exhausted population.

That is all.

RPC Government 1A Essay #7: I Would Very Much Prefer Setting My Own Prices

Writing assignment: 500 words on this topic, “Who should have the authority to set prices, the free market or the state? Why?”

It is historical fact that if and when the state sets minimum prices (aka price floors) and maximum prices (aka price ceilings) the next logical event is that there will be surpluses and shortages. (Also, I must mention surpluses are not as amazing as they sound. The surplus should actually be referred to as WASTE)

The issue in this government decision to choose the prices for everyone’s productions is that the state is not at all able to truly understand the private transactions between buyers and sellers. The state is only a third party, so it should not interfere, with the exception of defend either the buyer or seller from theft. (Although, that is a tangent) The whole idea behind “transaction” is that is 100% voluntary, and if we government forcing the seller to pick his price, thus forcing the buyer to pay her price. This is not as beneficial to these peoples as the normal, voluntary, transaction.

This is in reference to choose between the two systems, 1) the state-run economy or, 2) the free-market exchange economy.

The private ownerships of the free market require that there merely be no confiscation from the state, thieves or slavery.

Meanwhile, the state-run economy is built upon government control and is really intended to be socialism.
State-run economy does not work (as mentioned above) because control never works. Life is roadblocks and chaos and there is no way for beauracracy to control everyone’s businesses. Businesspeople should set their own prices and the customers make their decisions on whether the businessperson should stay in the business, (by voting with their dollars). In the usual shopping venture, the customer is trying to look for the best-bang-for-their-buck. People aren’t buying? Businesses set their prices lower or increase the quality of their services.

So, in a nutshell, competition signals prices in a free economy. Individual-set prices convey information, while state-set prices are artificial and can only predict so much. When the state distorts prices, the data gets scrapped. Never do you see businesspeople setting their prices higher and higher for no reason, they want to stay in business! Right?

It’s merely a scale of supply and demand, really. More freedom perpetrates fewer shortages, surpluses and most importantly LOSSES. I would hate for the government to set my prices to unreasonable amounts (for my customers and myself)!
The free market should get priority on this matter.

RPC Government 1b Essay #17: Are Voters Informed? & Political Representation

(1) Are voters informed? If not, why not? According to Professor Caplan, is the problem ignorance or irrationality? (2) Professor Casey claims that the idea of political representation is an empty one. How does he defend this argument? 

Hello everyone! Welcome to one of my last essays, and I’ll be explaining the ideas behind Professors Caplan and Casey concerning voting.

First of all, are voters informed? Well according to the “miracle of aggregation” theory, it won’t matter if voters are informed or not. Why? Because the “errors” of voting will cancel themselves out (as if a dice game), but it is still a theory. Public choice economics studies (like those of Professor Byron Caplan) have proven that most voters are irrational. When some guy in a uniform tries to defend his position rather than remain agnostic on this topic is acting irrational, not ignorant.

Going on to the 2nd part, Professor Casey states claim that because political representatives don’t do the exact things they are commissioned to do (despite the power we as individuals grant to these “representatives”) and could be appointed even if you didn’t vote for them yourself, that representation in government or politics as a whole is an empty truth. (Even if you *do* vote for them with the intent of avoiding a candidate you find worse, that still doesn’t mean they’re representing you) If an agent (for nonpolitical scenarios) can represent you well because they are *your* agent, how can a politician represent *you* and the rest of the population?

RPC Western Literature II Final Paper: The Importance of Optimism

“How important has the theme of optimism been in the development of Western literature since 1493?”

Length: 2,500 words (10 double-spaced pages).

Greetings to all it may concern, welcome to my term paper for the Ron Paul Curriculum’s Western Literature II course. Taught by my intense yet masterful teacher Gary North (rest in peace). I have read a good collection of works from throughout the entire history of Western Civilization’s greatest minds and thinkers. 

During this term, I have done much with my learning of the Literature of Western Culture, I have studied a large list of books, and without any further ado, (I hope that this doesn’t feel that much like bragging) on the topic of this TERM’s. essay! 

But first, let’s go to the beginning of the list (in terms of time), and take a gander at the works of Bocaccio and Chaucer: *Decameron* + *Canterbury Tales*. (I know these works were published before 1490, but I still think we should go back to the start) These are considered the first true great works of literature in Western Civilization, but it is debatable whether they can be considered secular works, Christian works or something more pagan, due to the amounts of myth and folklore present in them.

 (even if they absolutely do nothing for the plot besides just being there) 

Now, quick question, is this important? Well, I argue it is!

Looking at Christianity’s core beliefs, the theme of optimism is very important, specifically because of the sanctions God promises his loving people. (For instance, “the meek shall inherit the Earth”) I bring this up because, these books written in the 1400’s (and others on the list I placed up above) that came before 1493 really did not adopt any sort of true Christian optimism that is remembered of Western Civilization’s age of discovery (which, coincidentally started in the 1490’s). 

Here. truly, begins my term paper on the importance of Optimism in Western Literature, and how I believe it has been linked with Christian beliefs. 

Going into a bit of a(n important) tangent, in 1493, what could be argued as the single most important voyage of mankind, the sea voyage of The Pinta, Nina & Santa Maria. It may not have been the *first* expedition to reach the American continents, but it was the most influential. In my 20th essay for Western Civ II, I mentioned how the discovery of the Americas (and its people) shook the outlook of many concepts (like Human Rights) for Western Civilization. 

Continuing through to the 16th century, this is where we see Eternal Succession (as is part of Christian eschatology) used to its fullest. The use of trials in stories where characters suffer through challenges to gain the status of martyrdom can be considered an optimistic response to the crises both personal and social of the times, all beginning with Martin Luther’s *95 Theses*.  Taking a look at *95 Theses* by Martin Luther, optimism is very evident in his works. 

He had no idea his works would have drastically changed the West as much as it has, with the creation of the Protestant church. Luther believed that with the refined and legitimate forms of law and work, “man becomes better” in the future, which is the text-book definition (in Christianity) for long-term optimism. AS A WHOLE, the Protestant Reformation was a movement fueled by optimistic beliefs. In his works, the *95 thesis* Luther quotes “For repentance corrects the will; and if ye will not repent through fear of evil, at least ye may for the pleasure of good things; hence He says, the kingdom of heaven is at hand; that is, the blessings of the heavenly kingdom.” (Matthew 4:17), calling others to repent from their views see his side of things, as a promise of the future.  

According to Luther’s words: “love grows by works of love”. If this isn’t seen as a form of optimism, I do not know quite what is. 

Back to the books in William Shakespeare’s *Romeo and Juliet* (we all know the story by now, so there’s no explaining needed), there is some optimism displayed in his famous tragedy (mainly from the two titular characters and the people who help them achieve their, ultimately doomed, romance), but because the fiction ends with everyone, from both parties, suffering grief, I feel William showed off that he was more of a pragmatic man. He wrote tragedies to reflect the times.

The importance of optimism is also reflected through the 16th (and 17th) century’s increased traction towards writing stories based around the concept of Utopia. 

The word Utopia itself originates from Sir Thomas More’s novel aptly named *Utopia*, published in 1516, describes an idealized “island society”. (The concept of Dystopia would arise later, as the idea of a failed utopia. Obviously, it is not optimistic) 

Fellow philosopher Michel De Montaigne (famous for his famous quotes and idioms, as well as popularizing the essay writing style) Within his exercised essays, he wrote avidly about the quest of self-discovery and reflection. He wrote essays about cannibal islanders’ treatment of the dead being perhaps superior to the west’s as well, bringing about a further similarity with his essays and Sir Thomas More’s *Utopia*. 

One of my best representatives for the 16th century’s love of magic and the occult, *Doctor Faustus* (written by Christopher Marlowe in 1592~3), was about the titular character Dr Faust. Highly successful yet dissatisfied, if not bored, of his life, he calls upon a demon to give him special powers, riches and friends (as well as some tours of heaven & hell). This does not last of course, and when he meets his fateful end (groveling and pleading the long way down). 

Besides the prevalence of the theme of magic, also present in this book is the theme of contempt, and (somewhat innocent) corruption. Faust was perfectly happy in life (just like how many other characters in all of these Western novels to come, might I add), but chose to throw their easy, boring lives away for a little adventure and scandalous pleasures (only to get absolutely rocked in the end, and either repent or burn). Some traces of optimism can be scavenged in here, either through how Faust was so optimistic that he could *be different* than all those who dealt with the Devil before him, or through how he convinced his apprentices, in his last few legs of life, to not pursue the “powers of darkness”, because he would not live long enough to see what their choices would end up being, he could only hope.

To summarize the 16th century, Western Civilization was undergoing the beginnings of the Enlightenment, and begging many questions about human rights, values and conditions, with the Protestant Church first opening its doors, and of course, gaining some writers.

Now we are in the 17th century, and the state of Western Civilization, and Literature is booming with the further spreading of the printing press. The old “magical” outlook of life, with its fairytales, folklore and pagan deities being involved, but secular literature and plays *were* being aimed at entertaining the masses. With the printing press expanding the reach of all literary works, groups began gaining rivalries, and after the 1660’s, Great Britain’s (and onwards) high society elite began to take a hold of a reformed Rationalism. 

The 1640’s are rife with what could be considered akin to a civil war of pamphlets, after the freeing of the news. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a (bloodless) uprising by parliament and the Protestants of England against the (Catholic) King James the 2nd. This century was when the “witch craze” began, where the “magic” of superstition, occultism and Grimm fairy tales mixed with the fearful religious groups of the times, making a social war between (mainly Protestant) Christianity and “magic”. 

Right around this time, Early American literature began arising from the Colonial (and Early National Period which ended around the 19th century) of the continent, and it was much like the settlers themselves: straight forward, simple and concerned of the future. 

Some literature was based directly on their own experiences out on the borders, other works inspired by the other creations of great writers from the British Isles. Christianity was divided, and with mass printing came a new battleground of rival philosophies and literary civil war. The old outlook on magic remained.

It is worth displaying the 17th century’s truly great Christian literary works by looking to Miguel de Cervantes, who displayed in his novella turned great work *Don Quixote* (about the titular noble who, turned “mad” thought himself a legendary chivalrous crusader, going on quests throughout Spain) we see a great deal of Christian optimism: “Trust time; it usually provides a sweet way out of many bitter challenges.” Don Quixote says as he is doing his “Christian duty” as knight-errant. 

The Enlightenment severely influenced Western Literary works in the seventeenth century. British History David Bebbington said that “The Evangelical version of Protestantism was created by the Enlightenment”. Characterized as Enlightenment traits were empiricism, optimism, pragmatic and tolerant outlooks. Evangelism was “a new movement and not merely a variation of themes heard in The Reformations”. ‘The Evangelical Revival’, he concludes, ‘represents a sharp discontinuity in the Protestant tradition’.

Back to the books! Written in 1667, the last official “Epic Poem” *Paradise Lost* (written by John Milton), has been described as a creative fictional rewriting of the Bible’s book of Genesis (of Satan’s fall from heaven and temptation of Adam & Eve). He opposed religious institutions, like Calvinism, and as a Puritan man, Milton chose to highlight the good that comes after the fall of man, and the optimism that comes from true humanity and lost innocence. His book’s ending was hopeful, even if it was not victorious. 

Summarizing the 17th century, magic is still very alive to the public, established Church organizations (that are not a part of the Papacy) are becoming voices of authority and literature is just over all gaining more public views and opinions. On top of this, the Enlightenment was noticeably at its height. 

Now, here in the 18th century, Christianity was beginning to be considered “irrelevant” by much of the population. Most prevalent, is this statement, when we look to *The Grumbling Hive* by Bernard Mandeville. 

In The Grumbling Hive, Mandeville describes a community of bees that thrive based on their greed, but when they abandon their desire for personal gain, their economy collapses, leaving them to live simple lives in a hollow tree. If you cannot tell, Bernard Mandeville thought that Christian (and non-Christian) optimism and virtue was pointless, and if we want a “rich” society, the only way to attain such is if everyone is only looking out for themselves. And, if you couldn’t tell, nearly everyone else who read his book who knew a lick of sense, argued against his viewpoints.

 Optimism was still important to Western society in the 18th century, and this is reflected through how controversial Mandeville’s *Grumbling Hive* was! It was unique in how it portrayed the argument for what is effectively civil injustice. Truthfulness, justice and freedom aren’t necessary to these bees or the functioning of their hive! But, if anything, Mandeville’s selective poetry showed a different kind of optimism, one that views an imperfect economic society.

Now, although *Pilgrim’s Progress* is held up to the same veins as *Paradise Lost* a century before it, the 1678 novel by Puritan Writer and Preacher John Bunyan is more idealistic and influential. 

Bunyan calls upon the readers through his religious allegory of a pilgrimage with the protagonist, a young man (literally named “Christian”). Christian has himself a little crisis of the heart and spirit and grows his desire to truly become a Christian. Leaving his home and loved ones, he goes optimistically off on his own, meeting symbolic creatures and characters on his lonely road to eternal succession. It is classically optimistic and chock-full of Christian hope, about the delivery of humanity from eternal damnation to eternal life. 

One of the novels I really did quite enjoy this year was Robinson Crusoe, written by Daniel Dafoe (in 1719). Witten from an explicitly Puritan Christian author, Dafoe (who was experienced, had written around 200 other books and pamphlets), and it is the 2nd most popular English novel in the world (behind Pilgrim’s Progress). 

Its theme is mainly of personal redemption. Born into the middle class of disease, Robinsone Crusoe found his father’s (reasonable) advice to settle down, find a career and start his own family awful, and pursuing a life of riches, he took to the seas. On his voyage, Robinson’s quest went awry repeatedly and to keep his optimism, Crusoe desperately made numerous vows to God, but still broke them each time things began to go his way (this a theme many Christian people, myself included experience in life). Negative consequences plagued his life throughout the novel, leading to his creation of a list of revolutions, which he continued to rebel from. Initially ignoring the Bible, he brought with him off ship, he eventually read it and slowly changed his moral outlook on life. He gained the optimistic view of the future Western Society is known for and began improving himself. Readers responded well to this heroic retelling of “the Prodigal son”, as it was the popular story of the time, thus this book retains popularity through the ages. 

Now a similar adventure novel published in the 18th century was *Gulliver’s Travels*. (By Jonathan Swift, who also wrote *A Modest Proposal*, a satirical philosophical essay, on how the people of Ireland could’ve survived famines easier if they simply ate their children!) 

As seen through *Gulliver’s Travels* (and *Modest Proposal*), through the eyes of our average human protagonist Lemuel Gulliver, satire of Western and non-Western society was very alive in the 1700’s. On his adventures through Lilliput Swift comments on how the government conveys that the state cannot be trusted to act morally. It is noteworthy to mention that in *Gulliver’s Travels*, the only deliverance from the clutches of politicians are the representations of hope and optimism. 

The (French) Enlightenment (and its pessimism) was still going strong into the 1700’s, as *Candide, ou l’Optimisme* (written by French author Voltaire in 1759) can show us. He was skeptical of the religious nature of everyone’s optimistic future. In *Candide*, a merchant/rich man in the city of Venice is unsatisfied or disappointed with his life, despite his vast wealth. Through the book’s less-than realistic events, he finds himself in the country of Turkey, yet no closer to finding his meaning in life. *Candide* decides, through our protagonist, that the one (1) thing worth doing in life is cultivating your own personal garden. As you could see, the French Enlightenment’s outlook of the 18th century was full of contradictory, hedonistic and pessimistic opinions, but despite that, also showed off how simple life can, and should, be.  

Reviewing the 18th century of Western Civilization, magic was fairly dead in most literary works, but Christian themes were also losing popularity due to the secular movements of the Enlightenment. Optimism was obviously quite important, as many a writer was concerned with how it (optimism, or the *representation* of it) was seemingly the one way out of tyranny’s grasp. Satire was also very much alive! Jonathan Swift was a prominent warrior of the writing style, but this blend of comedy and (il)logic was, while not entirely new, a fresh way for authors to take stabs at the problems of their times. 

Onwards to the 19th century, I felt a fair impact from the Samuel Butler novel *Erewhon*, written in 1872. Butler writes about religion and the evolution of utopia by exploring questions of society being determined by its past, or how philosophy legitimately develops a people. He gives a wary and vague view of the future, where free will may perhaps be an illusion, an influx of unpredictability and lack of historic evidence. He was certain of England’s fate being that of dystopia during the 1800s, a true example of Social Darwinism that was so popular in the 19th century.

So, in conclusion (a bit of a TL; DR if anything), Optimism *was* integral to the survival of Western Literature!

Optimism was prevalent in discovering the Americas (that there would be new opportunities for the masses).

Optimism prevalent in the Protestant Reformation (that the ways of the Catholic worshippers might change to a better way). 

Optimism prevalent in the Enlightenment (that humanity as a whole might change to a status than mere, cruel humanity). 

Or even optimism that there might really (but really?) be a little magic in the world. 

That is all.