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.

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 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.