Say you go on a run, most likely by the end of this run you are panting and gasping for air. But what causes this unique phenomenon to occur? Is it because of a lack of oxygen or an excess of carbon dioxide?
While running or doing any form or exercise your body needs more oxygen, or specifically your blood needs more oxygen. Your blood pressure will rise as more oxygen enters your bloodstream, which thus means that this oxygen will increase the oxygen in your muscles. Because of all this, the oxygen in your lungs begins to decrease, which to conclude is why when you are gasping for air it is because of a lack of oxygen, not an excess of carbon dioxide.
In the history of revolutions the American Revolution probably was the most successful in many ways, and was a revolution that was not carried out for the wrong principles. Like every revolution the American Revolution had its causes, and the reason why it was carried out. Before this revolution America or technically the thirteen colonies was under control of the British; the colonies and Britain got along alright during the beginning but things began to sour. Before the revolution itself there was a constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government. What was this constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that ultimately led to the American Revolution?
The colonists wanted a government that they themselves governed with little involvement from the British. The British government had other ideas, and began to put in place new taxes, which the colonists rejected. In 1767 in the Townshend Acts, the colonists boycotted these new taxes which forced the British to repeal them. They repealed all the new taxes except for the one on tea, which was to show that they still had control over the colonists. This control did not last much longer though.
To conclude, this was the constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British Government that led to the American Revolution.
Redistribution of wealth done by the state is a controversial topic, with many points on one side and many points on another. Some may say that the state has the right to redistribute wealth for the “good,” of the less fortunate, and others completely are against it. Regardless of these views and the large debate surrounding redistribution I might ask, does the state actually have the right to redistribute wealth?
First of all, what does the redistribution of wealth mean? The redistribution of wealth is a concept in which one group(aka the government in this situation), takes from one group and gives to another. This in government situations usually comes in the form of taxes. The statement, “tax the rich, and give to the poor,” pretty much defines what redistribution is, except a lot of the time in today’s society the people who are taxed in the majority are the middle class. The words, “taking from one group,” sounds very similar to the concept of stealing; stealing is taking from one group or an individual. Which is why I believe that redistribution of wealth is technically stealing if one looks at it in that light.
Does the state have the right to redistribute wealth? Like, somebody does not have the right to steal from another, the state also does not have the right to steal also. One could say that, “it’s different from stealing because the state is giving the money to a group,” but the act of obtaining the money to give is the same as the concept of stealing, though it is masked through taxes, etc. But the state technically does not have the right whatsoever to redistribute wealth; just because they are able to in some societies does not mean it is a “right,” or is right to do so.
To conclude, the state does not have the right to redistribute wealth, regardless of that “wealth,” being given to the less fortunate. A “right,” does not involve the taking or stealing from others. Regardless of this truth, redistribution of wealth is still a highly debated topic that will most likely not be resolved any time soon.
During the Enlightenment period in Europe there were quite a few rulers who actually adopted some of the beliefs, new ideas, and principles in their rule, which was thus “enlightened absolutism.” The majority of these rulers also fell into the category of being an absolutist monarch which was why this new way of rule is known as “enlightened absolutism.”
The key features of an “enlightened absolutist,” ruler include: interaction and discussion with well known enlightenment philosophers, religious toleration, judicial reform, etc. These rulers did not necessarily give more freedom to their “people,” but they were not as harsh as before the enlightenment. This new form of rule was especially seen in the countries of Prussia and Austria. To conclude, this is “enlightened absolutism.”
Cicero was a very important ancient Roman figure who was a famous orator, or speaker. One of Cicero’s well known written works was his Orations Against Catiline, which was a group of speeches directed at a man named Catiline. Cicero and Catiline were competing with each other for the position of consulship in Rome. This was a large debate that was eventually won out by who was the better public speaker. Catiline, spoiler alert, lost this debate, which makes me wonder, if I had been Catiline, what would I have said to undermine Cicero’s case?
The whole story of this debate between Cicero and Catiline went something in this form. Catiline had created a conspiracy against Cicero; at the start of his campaign for consulship he began using bribes, which Cicero learned about. Cicero on that note published a law that dealt with the issue of bribing, this obviously left Catiline feeling that this new law was targeted towards him which was why he began to think of a plot to murder Cicero. Like the situation with the bribes Cicero again discovers Catiline’s plot, which in turn Cicero uses as an advantage. Cicero begins to accuse Catiline of these terrible crimes to the Senate. He never brought these up against Catiline in a court of law but instead tried to persuade the senate to punish Catiline, which in my opinion was a fear tactic. Cicero’s main goal was to drive Catiline out of the city, which ultimately worked because Catiline did leave Rome.
If I was Catiline what would I have said to undermine Cicero’s case? Well first of all I would have not used bribes but if that was the case I would stand up for myself. I would ask Cicero for his evidence against me, I would stand for my case and hopefully prevent Cicero from going to the Senate. I personally believe that both men were to blame for the messy situation; Catiline should not have used bribes, Cicero infuriated Catiline with the new law, and Catiline most definitely should have not been plotting to murder Cicero. Catiline more or less was more in the wrong since he was the main reason for the whole situation occurring. Regardless of all this I still believe that Cicero would have won the case because he seemed to be a better public speaker, and was much more persuasive with his arguments.
Cicero is considered to be one of the greatest orators in history, though some of his written works on rhetoric have some questionable advice. In history he is also known for his political scandal between Catiline, who was a conspirator against Rome. Cicero, with his skill in rhetoric, was able to influence Catiline leaving Rome.
Human rights is a widely discussed and debated concept, with a wide variety of views on both sides. Each country has its own concept of human rights regardless of whether it goes against the concept or not. With the western view of human rights there are two sides: negative and positive rights. What is the difference between the two?
Negative human rights are the rights that have to do with not infringing on others. For example: the right to have your things not stolen from you. These rights are the basic rights that the majority of people agree upon, you have a right not to be murdered after all. Positive rights on the other hand become a slightly less straightforward topic. Positive rights are not exactly human rights since they involve plunder and infringing on the negative rights. Positive rights place an obligation on others to bestow certain benefits to you; an example of this is, the right to a home.
To conclude, the difference between positive and negative rights is that negative rights involve not infringing on others, for example the right to not be murdered. Positive rights infringe on these negative rights, place an obligation on others to bestow certain benefits to you.
The War of Austrian Succession(1740-1748), involved the Prussian king Frederick II, and the Austrian ruler, Maria Theresa. Both contending parties had different reasons to wage this war. But what were the overall causes and consequences of the war of Austrian Succession?
The causes of this war included the truth that Maria Theresa was overlooked as a ruler until she became a pretty dominant power. This led to her being bribed and pressured by other rulers including Frederick II, who wanted a piece of land called Silesia, which was part of Theresa’s territory. She rejected those bribes which thus brought forth the War of Austrian Succession. The war itself had victories on both sides, but ultimately in the end Frederick was ultimately victorious, and thus winning the land of Silesia. In short, those were the causes and consequences of the War of Austrian Succession.
Adam Smith(1723-1790), was an important British economist and figure of the Scottish Enlightenment period. Smith further developed the concept of economics and was a pretty important influence to the founders of America. One of his economic concepts is known as the “Invisible Hand.” What does Smith mean by his concept of the “Invisible Hand?”
The “Invisible Hand,” in Smith’s definition is the demands of society, or the trading market, which depends on self interest. Smith stated that when someone is led by their self-interest, they usually end up helping others in the outcome, which is the “Invisible Hand,” guiding them. This is only really possible in a free market society. Thus, this is what Adam Smith meant by the “Invisible Hand.”
Free speech is a highly talked about and essential human right. There is much debate still on the following points: is free speech acceptable in all situations? Should it not be allowed in certain situations? Etc, but overall regardless of all the debate and controversy surrounding it most people can agree that it is still an essential human right. A question that comes into regard is that: is the question of free speech a root matter of property rights?
Before answering this question I will give this scenario. Say if you were at a restaurant enjoying your meal and a bunch of protestors came into the restaurant to protest, would that be acceptable? Well you most likely would be appalled in that situation, and hope that either the restaurant kicks them out or the police are called. But does this situation violate the right of free speech? This restaurant is owned by somebody, it is private property, and has its own set of rules, which most definitely does not include allowing a bunch of angry protestors in. These protestors would be kicked out of the restaurant for being disruptive and loud, not for what they were protesting for. Which is why I believe that the right of free speech is a root matter of property rights, and would be inconsistent if it was separate from the concept of property rights. Free speech and property rights go hand in hand.
This answer I gave, being that free speech and property rights go hand in hand, if more individuals understood that concept the concept of free speech would be far less controversial and more straightforward to understand. Thus, this is why free speech is a root matter of property rights.
During the Enlightenment period in Europe people were exploring new ideas and views; some of those new ideas were relatively sound in nature and others were not. One of those new ideas was the belief of materialism which began to emerge in the 18th century, specifically in France. The individuals who had this belief of materialism are known as materialists. But what is materialism, and what were the views of the materialists, specifically the French materialists?
Materialism is the view that the human body is like a machine, that is in design only able to follow its nature. Because the human body is like a machine it does not have a soul, and is technically an animal, without a free will. The only difference between a human and an animal is that a human has purpose. In short, these were some of the views of the French Materialists.