Today there is still an ongoing debate on the question: are voters informed? A man who dove into this question and explained it further is Professor Caplan, who went as far to also ask and answer the question: if voters are uninformed is the problem ignorance or irrationality?
The common agreement is that the majority of voters are uninformed, which is unsurprising. Most voters make many errors in their voting and continue on to make those same mistakes throughout their voting days, the reason why they continue to make the same mistakes is that the consequences are not direct because individual votes do not count. Professor Bryan brought up the question: is the problem with the lack of informed voters due to ignorance or irrationality?
Byran argued that the mistakes that voters make are systemic, not random, in other words, the problem is mainly due to irrationality, not ignorance(though that does not mean that ignorance does not play a role whatsoever). The reason why Byran believed that was because most voting errors are made in the direction of a personal bias. Another reason why voters make errors that relate to irrationality is that “false beliefs are cheap.” Because individual votes do not dictate the outcome of an election, having false political beliefs do not carry much weight and do not really affect the voter’s life. If it did matter to be informed when it comes to voting, and those false beliefs do carry weight and can affect the voter, then most likely most voters would be informed. But that is not the case.
Voters in general are usually uninformed because the consequences of an individual vote are minuscule to the individual. Professor Caplan believed that the problem in the matter of uninformed voters is due to irrationality, not ignorance.
The New Deal was a series of US government actions during the turbulent time of the Great Depression, under the Presidency of F.D.R. A common claim that people make in regards to the New Deal is this: “The New Deal was a wise series of government actions that healed the problems afflicting the economy.” Is this claim really accurate?
An example of the government actions during the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was designed to provide stability to businesses but to prevent competition. To authorize fair wages and prices. This ultimately was not beneficial whatsoever to the small business and instead benefited large businesses, which had multiple locations in various areas. Because the only way that small businesses could compete with large businesses is through low prices, the small businesses suffered because they could not compete with low prices. Another example of a New Deal government action was the Agricultural Adjustment Act. This was carried out by destroying already grown crops to raise prices; also the government limited the number of acres. The outcome of this was the unemployment of two million share or tenant farmers, and not enough food being produced to feed the country.
The New Deal was not a series of wise government actions that healed the problems afflicting the economy, which is clearly seen in some of the examples listed above. The moral of the story is that government intervention is usually not clean-cut and most likely causes more harm than good.
In Western history during the majority of the 19th century the West experienced a historical phenomena known as the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution brought a surge of change and development in western society, with more technological advancements than ever before. Because the Industrial Revolution was such an important and changing period in history the standard of living was affected. How was the standard of living affected by the industrial revolution?
The standard of living during the industrial revolution was affected greatly in the positive direction. The industrial revolution brought forth more opportunities for workers. Instead of having to work as a farmer or a tradesman of some form now lower class workers were able to choose different options for jobs. Income rates increased greatly during the Industrial Revolution especially for the lower class which of course affected the standard of living for the good. Thus, in short the standard of living in the west was affected very much in the positive direction by the industrial revolution.
The main view of the public school of economics is: individuals are self interested: they remain self interested when they enter government. This is very unlike the more “romantic,” or “idealistic,” view being that people in government are committed to public good, or are “public servants.” With the main view of the public school of economics in mind, what are some of the major arguments advanced by the public school of economics?
One of the major arguments advanced by the public school of economics is that in the free market, one can receive a benefit or face the consequences in an exchange. This is unlike politics because officials do not face any form of feedback or consequence in the form of voting. Another important argument is on the topic of voting. When a person votes for a politician they do not vote for that politician because they agree with him/her fully. Most likely that person disagrees with many of the beliefs or points that the politician believes; which means that the only reason why that person is voting for this person in the first place is because the politician shares a similar belief in a large or important issue, that the voter feels strongly about.
To conclude, these are some of the major arguments advanced by the public school of economics.
After World War II countries in Africa began to slip away from Western control and began governing themselves. The outcome of this was a mixed result, due to the fact that some of those countries ended up with very restrictive and controlling governments. What kind of success did Africa have the governments that wielded great powers over the different African economics?
Africa did not have great success whatsoever with governments that wielded great economic power. The individual African countries that adopted this form of government suffered greatly, with severe economic lows, low production rate, corrupt leaders, etc. This form of government actually made the countries who adopted it poorer and less successful overall. Thus in short, this was the kind of success Africa had with governments that wielded great powers over the different African economies.
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.