Karl Marx(1818-1883), was a German political philosopher who compiled the ideas of the political ideology of communism. Marx believed very fully that communism was effective, and was bound to happen in the near future(which did in fact happen in some countries). Because Marx was a heavy believer of communism he had many criticisms toward capitalism. What are some of Marx’s criticisms of capitalism?
The first criticism of Marx that must be noted is how he believed that capitalism is based on the concept of “exploitation” of wage labor. A lot of Marx’s criticism towards capitalism was based on how a capitalistic economy apparently treated their workers. Another specific criticism is that in capitalism the producer only produces things that the consumer(buyer)wants. His argument was that in communism this would not be the case and that instead the producer could make what he wants to make, not what the people who give him business in the first place want. This would not exactly be an effective business decision whatsoever. The way that the producer is able to make money is by making what his consumer(buyer)wants, because why else would the consumer buy from him? It is clear that Marx was not exactly the most economically sound person.
Marx was very critical of capitalism, and believed quite fully that capitalism was all bad and that it did nothing good towards the working class. This was completely regardless of the truth that the majority of the things that come along with capitalism actually makes sense, and are effective economically.
Facism was a political ideology that became widespread in Europe during the earlier portion of the 20th century. A few influential European powers, such as Germany, adopted it. The ideology itself is quite controversial and many can agree that it overall was a negative in history. But what is facism? What are the primary values of this political ideology?
A fascist government has a heavy emphasis on the nation, and is very nationalistic. Instead of focusing on the triumphs of the individual fascism encourages the focusing of the triumphs of the state. That the “Good of the Nation,” is more important than the rights of the individual. Fascism promotes a planned government, instead of a government that is dictated by the people. In short, these were the primary values of fascism.
The American constitution has been a very important factor in ensuring that the freedoms of the American people are protected from the government. This is unique compared to other countries. The American constitution, though aspects of it have been updated, there are specific things that have never changed since its creation. 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?”
A “living constitution,” is a constitution that can be modified or changed if necessary over the years, to keep up with the changing times. In the case of the American Revolution, one can consider it as a war against a “living constitution”.” This is due to the truth that the colonists at the time wanted certain laws that would never be changed. Laws that would never change over the years.
Thus, this is the idea of a “living constitution,” which is a constitution that can be changed if necessary over the years. The colonists before and during the American Revolution did not want a “living constitution,” they wanted a constitution that would not be changed at random, and would be relevant over the years, which is why it can be argued that the American Revolution was a war against a “living constitution.”
The United States is a vast country that is divided into fifty states. Each state has some of its own authority and is more or else somewhat separate from the federal government. Some seem to believe the two political theories apply to the United States situation are the compact and nationalist theories. What are the compact and nationalist theories of the union?
The compact theory states that the Union came after the states. That the states created the union, and the union is only a combination of these states. The nationalist theory states on the other hand that the states have no power, that a union is a whole unit, and that the states were created after the union. In conclusion, these are the compact and nationalist theories of the union.
Althusius was a German political philosopher during the early 17th century. Hobbes on the other hand was an English political philosopher, who lived during the 17th century. Both of these political philosophers had pretty different ideas and beliefs, on numerous areas of topics. An example of the very different views of these philosophers is their models of society. What were the models of society laid out by Althusius and Hobbes?
The Althusius model of society was a model in which there were a series of groups. The first group is the family, and the second group is the village. A group of villages becomes a province or provinces, and finally, these provinces evolve into kingdoms. In this model, the people create their government which leaves them the ability to give or take back power from the government.
Hobbes’ model of society on the other hand was very much different. Hobbes stated that the government was not created by the people, and was there before. A government has the right to give and take away the rights and liberties of the people. The people have to do things for the government, not the other way around. Thus these are the models of society laid out by Altusius and Hobbes.
Fiat money or the paper money that the majority of society uses today is convenient, easy to understand, and overall has made the buying and selling of goods and services easier. Like everything fiat money has its issues or disadvantages which are rather overlooked the most. What are three of these disadvantages of fiat money?
The first disadvantage of fiat money is that it can inflate. Because the government is in control of the money supply, and how much money is to be printed, prices of things can go up or fluctuate and reduce the value of the money. This is a common theme unfortunately today, where something ten years ago was cheaper than the same thing would be today. Another disadvantage that comes along with inflation is that fiat money can drop to zero value, and when that happens that money’s value cannot rise again.
The final disadvantage I must note is that because fiat money is controlled by the government, it increases the power of the government over the people. Money is very important and pretty much everyone relies on it one way or another, if the government has control over that money when it comes to printing, that government has a pretty stronghold on the people. The people can only use the money that the government makes themselves.
Fiat money is the norm in the majority of today’s societies and has been in use for some time. Unfortunately, fiat money has many disadvantages including the truth that it can inflate, has a risk of dropping to zero value, and gives governments the opportunity to have more control over their people.
Money is a very important part of our modern society today and is the medium of exchange that everyone uses to exchange goods and services. Like everything money has its origins, what is the origin of money?
To first note money is a rather nonspecific word that could refer to many things, which is why when I am referring to the word “money,” I mean paper bills that the majority of us use today. With that now in mind the origin of money. People before a form of money used to barter, which is a method where one trades one good or another good from someone else. For example say if I traded some chocolate for some flour with someone, that is barter. Barter though it worked was not exactly convenient, no one exactly knew what good equaled the value of another good, which led to some confusion.
After a while people began to search for other methods for a medium of exchange that had universal value; they landed on gold. Gold though it had many pros had one main con, which was that it was not exactly practical to carry around. Carrying around pieces of gold is not exactly convenient. This is why eventually, the paper money we have today came into the picture.
In conclusion, money originated from barter, which was not exactly convenient, but eventually evolved into using gold. The usage of gold because it was not practical to carry around bits of gold, eventually changed and evolved yet again into the paper money we have today. This is the origin of money.
Governments throughout history have done unethical things at one point. Even though the majority of those unethical deeds did seem unethical to the public, that did not justify them. An unethical and questionable thing that the US government did is referred to as the Washington Monument Syndrome. What is the Washington Monument Syndrome?
The Washington Monument Syndrome refers to a period in which the Washington Monument was closed by the United States government, to control budget cuts. In a normal situation if the government was faced with a budget cut, they would shut something down that does not have much use, or fire a few government employees that were not necessary employees. But in this case the government did not want to go ahead with this budget cut so to override it they shut down the very famous and visited Washington Monument. This angered the public to a point that it reversed the budget cut ultimately. Not surprisingly this was exactly the government’s plan, to use the public in their favor, without maybe considering why the budget cut needed to happen in the first place.
The Washington Monument Syndrome refers to how the United States government overrode a budget cut by using the public’s anger in their favor, regardless of if the budget cut was necessary.
The benefit principle is the concept that people should be taxed in accordance with the benefits those people receive from the government. Overall this concept sounds relatively sound, but with every concept there is always the question of, does it have any issues? Does the benefit principle have any problems with it?
First of all, because the benefit principle is a concept of people being taxed in accordance with the benefits those people receive from the government, there are some definant issues, including the question: what about people who receive welfare checks, or people who work for the government? In technical terms a person who works for the government receives all of their monetary benefits from the government, which means in the definition of the benefit principle, these people have to be taxed their entire income from the state, this also goes for people who receive welfare checks. This is questionable, who wants to get paid to just give all that money back to the entity that is paying you, a bit contradictory to say the least. Another problem with the concept of the benefit principle is how it does not apply in the market. For example people who benefit greatly from a product pay the same amount as somebody who benefits only a little to none from the same product.
The “benefit principle,” though the concept in and of itself sounds relatively sound, has a few important contradictory issues. Any concept that contradicts itself, cannot be implemented effectively, and thus if implemented results in confusion.
Drugs are a very large issue and have been for decades. Even though most illicit drugs are illegal, that does not prevent people from getting a hold of them. There are many sides to this complicated debate on drugs, which is far too vast to get into much detail. The US government has acted many times to fight this plague of drugs, but overall these attempts are unsuccessful, which brings up the question: what are some of the problems with the federal prohibition on certain drugs?
A commonly known fact is that no matter how much information is brought out there on the terrible side effects of these illicit drugs, that does not stop people from getting intrigued by them or getting their hands on these drugs. No matter how much is done by the people or state it does not stop the use of drugs. The Federal Prohibition on illicit drugs began in 1971 under President Nixon. Some of the issues that the Federal Prohibition on drugs faced included the heavy use of limited resources such as police officers. Because police officers now had to focus on catching drug offenders, there was less of a focus on other crimes such as crimes against private property, which sometimes led to a rise in those crimes. This focus on drug offenders in the police force did not solve the underlying problem.
Prisons began to fill up with drug addicts instead of all actual real criminals such as murderers, thieves, assaulters, or people who sold drugs. This led to an increase in taxpayer money being spent, because not surprisingly drug addicts require medical attention. This, though not as mentioned, is the ugly truth that because drug addicts could go to jail for abusing drugs, people resist getting medical attention or calling 911 when someone in their circle is overdosing. This increases deaths due to drugs. Overall the federal prohibition on certain drugs has not been successful in decreasing the number of deaths from drugs, the overall problem, and most importantly making it more difficult for people to find them.
The debate on drugs is probably one of the more controversial topics today, with many ins and outs for arguments. Regardless, one must note the truth that the Federal Prohibition on drugs in the US has not improved the situation, and instead in many ways made it worse. Thus these are some of the problems with the Federal Prohibition on certain drugs.