Is the State the Source of Human Rights?

Human rights is a very discussed topic; it is discussed when individuals talk about foreign countries who go completely against the idea of human rights. Or maybe one may talk about it when discussing the past. In general, I have heard the discussion of human rights many times, by individuals of all ages; but where do we get this source of human rights from? Is the state the source of human rights?

Some will say that the state is the source of human rights, that if the government is an oppressive one, the lower the rights of the people. This is actually true in many instances, look for example at the Soviet Union, but I wouldn’t call this a source of human rights. The state can restrict the rights of the people but that does not mean that they are the exact source of human rights, which is why I believe that the state is not the source of human rights.

But what is the actual source of human rights? Well, I am a Christian and I believe that God is the source of human rights. Yes, I mean the rights that we all as humans are entitled to(property rights, religious freedom, etc). Yes, these rights can be restricted by the state but that does not mean that we as humans are not entitled to these rights and that the state is the source of these rights. Just because something is capable of restricting something does not mean that they are the source of the thing that they are restricting. 

In conclusion, these days it especially seems that the state is the source of human rights, with governments around the world being able to restrict the basics of human rights(property rights, religious freedom, etc), but in actuality the source of human rights is from the Creator of all things, God.

Is Restitution to Victims Better for Society Than Jail Sentences for Criminals?

The question above is complicated, since there is still a large debate on this topic. There are more than one answers to this question in my opinion, and it largely depends on the situation or crime. Restitution on the other hand means: the restoration of something lost or stolen to it’s proper owner. 

There are many kinds of crime, and these crimes are on a hierarchy of how severe the punishment will be to anyone who commits a certain crime. Also the severity of punishments for certain crimes differ depending on the area(this especially goes for the US). But there is one thing for certain, someone has to pay for the upkeep of prisons; and prisons are paid mostly by taxpayers. Actually most definitely paid by taxpayers.

It is rather ironic to think that when a person gets robbed, and the person who robbed them goes to jail, the victim in this situation has to pay for the criminals’ well being in jail. When it comes to prisons there are many cases in which criminals do not learn the consequences of their action, and instead become more of a criminal. This is most likely due to criminals being surrounded by other criminals, who probably committed worse crimes. Also to note there are cases of criminals after finishing their jail sentence who go back to crime.

In my opinion a criminal should have to pay restitution, or work to pay for the wrong he has done. This though only goes for specific situations, or crimes, for example theft. Hence why I believe that restitution to victims is better for society than jail sentences to criminals, in specific situations. For example if a criminal is a mass murderer, in the US(this depends on the area), they most likely will get death row, restitution cannot be paid, obviously.

In conclusion, in my opinion restitution to victims of crime is better for society than jail sentences for criminals in certain scenarios. There are a number of reasons why I believe this, but the main reason being the fact that tax-payers mainly pay for prisons, which means that most likely a victim of crime will be paying for a criminal’s well being. Also criminals in many cases become more criminal after jail, due to being surrounded by other criminals.

Should the Group in a Legislator’s District That Got Him Elected Monitor Votes, and Recruit Someone to Run Against Him in the Next Primary if He Starts Voting Wrong?

This question is slightly complicated, but here is the breakdown. So a legislator is elected by a certain group of people, which means that there is pressure upon this legislator to support the actual ideas and beliefs that he said he was for. But what if he begins voting on things that do not support his supposed ideas? Is the question above a yes or no?

In my opinion, I believe mostly yes. The group in a legislator’s district that got a legislator elected should be able to monitor votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts “voting” wrong. Well the people who got him elected should be able to hold him accountable, which is by monitoring his votes. People do have a responsibility to ensure that who they elected is actually accountable and holds up to what they say they would do.

Also if this legislator goes completely against what he says he would do if he is in this position, the people who got him elected should be able to recruit someone else to run against this legislator in the next primary. Also if the people do not agree with this legislator any more for other reasons they should also be able to recruit someone to run against him. 

This in my opinion is crucial in holding legislators accountable, or anyone who is in a position of power accountable.

Should the Police be Allowed to Enforce a Politician’s Verbal Restriction Against Making a Video of Him at an Open Meeting

Say someone wants to make a video of a politician during an open meeting, but the politician creates a verbal restriction against any videos which may be made of him during the open meeting. The way he most likely would enforce this restriction is through the police. Should the police be allowed to enforce the politician’s verbal restriction, even though the meeting is an open one, and it is not legal to enforce this form of restriction?

Before diving in and answering this question first it is best to explain what is the main job or duty of the government: which is to protect the rights of the citizens. The main job of the police is to enforce this protection. But say if a politician allows the police to enforce his restriction against making a video of him that goes against the freedom(this does not go for every country), of speech and press.

Back to the question. The answer to the question above is no. The police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting. This goes against the public’s protection or freedom of the press. This is pretty obvious, but why would a politician want this form of restriction to be enforced? Today is a time of social media, and the ability to broadcast and spread information is more at our fingertips than before. This ultimately means that politicians will now be easily held more accountable for their actions and what they say, which puts them at risk if they are proven accountable. It seems that politicians, at least most of them, do not exactly want to be held accountable.

In conclusion, my answer to the question: should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting, is no. At least in the legal perspective. 

How Could Voluntary Arrangements Solve This Problem if the State Did Not Impose the Politics of Plunder

For the past while for the government course I have been doing I have been reading: How to Argue with a Liberal and Win! This has been very interesting and insightful. Moving on to the main topic of the essay, my teacher wanted me to pick any chapter from the book. The chapter I chose is called: Government Should Control Prices but Not the People. After choosing a chapter now I must figure out this: how could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder.

Well first of all how is it possible for the government to not control people but control prices? The answer is absolutely not. Controlling prices basically controls the prices of services or products that businesses sell, also it controls how much people have to pay for services or products. Hence price controls are people controls.

But how could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder? Well the first thing you can do is budget. With budgeting you have limits on how much you spend on services or items. 

In conclusion, this is my answer to: “how could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder,” through the book chapter: Government Should Control Prices but Not the People, from the book: Argue with a Liberal and Win!

Price Controls are People Controls

The title of this essay may seem vague or confusing. I mean who controls prices in the first place, why are price controls people controls, and what does this whole thing mean? I was also quite stuck when I was presented with this statement. But with a few minutes of figuring things out I believe that I have sufficient answers to all questions you most likely have.

Prices should be controlled by the people; this is how the free market works when it comes to prices. Unfortunately in many scenarios it seems that the state is controlling prices instead of the people. If the state or government controls prices which is becoming more common these days, business owners, you or me, or any other person will have no control over prices. Businesses no longer will be able to control how much their products or services will cost. The average person including you and I will not have control over how much we would want to spend on something, because now that is not our decision if the state controls prices.

Now that I have given a basic image of who should control prices and what would happen if the state controlled prices, I will move on to the most important question: are price controls people controls? Well to begin with controls on prices by the government, now business owners are not able to have control over the prices of their services or products. That is controlling business owners, who are people, now I will move onto the side of the consumer. If the government controlled prices, that would control how much people would spend on things. In a world without price controls there is competition and the consumers are able to buy things at the prices they would prefer, or are more affordable for them personally. But with price controls now people have little control over how much they have to spend on things. This is quite a control, hence price controls are people controls.

In short, prices should be controlled by the people. By the government controlling prices that will control the prices of services or items, and the customers or consumers will have not a lot of choice over how much they would prefer to spend. This is why price controls are people controls.

Who Should Have the Authority to Set Prices, the Free Market or the State? Why?

There is still much a debate on who should control the economy. One side of this argument argues that the government should have little say or almost no say when it comes to the economy. The other side states the opposite. A topic that goes along with this debate is the topic of prices. Who should have the authority to set prices? The Free Market or the State? Which one should actually have the authority to do this?

When it comes to the idea of the state setting prices there are risks. Who knows, maybe the state will manipulate the prices, for their own benefit. Also this would give them the authority to raise the cost of living, to whatever they please. Also the state is not a business, it is the state after all, so it would most likely not understand the concept of voluntary exchange. Then you must think of all the regulations that the state would put upon the economy. Overall having the state have authority to set prices would not be a very wise idea, and would most likely negatively affect businesses, and individuals.

As for the free market option, instead of being restrictive; sellers can sell at any price, and the buyers can choose to buy things at any price. If something is too expensive for the buyer he/her most likely will go to a different seller to buy the item. In short meaning that sellers, and buyers contribute when it comes to prices. In the free market there is choice.

Therefore, in my opinion the free market should have the authority to set prices, for a number of reasons including the fact that it leaves freedom to the actual seller and buyers. Being able to choose your own prices boosts the economy, and benefits others.

Is it Possible to Have State Subsidies Without State Control

During the earlier months of the Covid 19 Pandemic in Canada, many businesses received some form of a subsidy from the government, to somewhat survive the shutdowns. A subsidy is a form of financial aid for businesses. Usually subsidies are controlled by the state, like I showed above in the Canadian example; but can these state subsidies be possible without state control?

Well the first point is the fact that you can start a charity or fund, but with that money must be coming from somewhere. This goes for state run subsidies, the money must come from somewhere. Usually this money is from other people. In the form of charity people give their money for a cause, but when it comes to state run subsidies, people are taxed. Which means that subsidies are not free, and they would not exist if they were “free.” In Canada when businesses receive subsidies from the government, other people are paying for that. Also people who receive subsidies from the state become dependent on it. Now the government controls those individuals; money after all is often used for control, so overall subsidies have a negative aspect to them. 

In conclusion, to answer the important question: is it possible to have state subsidies without state control? The answer is simply a no.

If the State is Strong Enough to do Something Good for You, it Can Also do Something Bad For You

The Government has played a role in society for a long time. It impacts many aspects of our lives today, and unfortunately has taken some control over our lives. Regardless if you agree with governments or not you must admit that governments have so far been a mixed bag. They have done some good to the people, but also have done some pretty bad things to the people.

With what I said above, it is clear that I do agree that the state can do something good for you, but also it can do something negative to you. Personally I also believe that a strong state is especially capable of doing negative and positive things to the people. Usually when a government does something negative to the people that negative thing looks positive. An example of which are certain taxes.

Also look at history; look at all the wrong governments have done to people. In my opinion history is proof enough that if a state is strong enough to do something beneficial it can also do something not beneficial.

Hence, I agree with the statement: if the state is strong enough to do something good for you, it can also do something bad for you.

Online Education is Bad For Society Because it Puts Classroom Teachers Out of Work

From reading this proposition you may agree with it, I mean it seems that online schooling does put classroom teachers out of work. This proposition shows the negative aspect of online schooling after all. But if you think about it there is always a different side or reality to what you think is the case. 

To begin with, this proposition or statement does seem relatively true but after digging deeper into the statement itself I gathered that this statement is not perfect. Yes online schooling can mean that some classroom teachers may lose their jobs, but also you have to think about the fact that online schooling probably will grow education as a market.

On the note of the fact that online schooling will most likely grow the area of education, which means most likely more jobs for teachers. Also because online schooling is technically a job and a lot of online teachers are paid for doing that job, educators are being paid. Also to note, I personally believe that a classroom teacher can also be an online teacher, it’s pretty similar except for the fact that you are teaching through the internet.

The most important thing though are the students when it comes to the market of education. With online schooling students are able to learn at their own pace which is a more detailed education. Because these students are receiving a better education from online schools, these students in turn will most likely become successful adults, which will benefit others, the job market, the economy, etc. I believe this goes for all forms of homeschooling. 

Not necessarily classroom teachers will be put out of work because of online education. Not every parent wants or can sign their children up to online schooling, so there will still be classroom students. The only way a classroom teacher would be out of work is if all of their students started doing online school. Also because of the demand of online schooling, classroom classes have less students which makes it easier for the teacher to be an effective teacher; which may attract some parents.

In conclusion, the thing that matters when it comes to the education market are the students. With online school students benefit due to the fact that they learn at their own pace, which is why there is demand for online schooling. Even with this demand for online schooling not all parents can or want to sign their children up for it, so there will be classroom students. Also because of the smaller classroom sizes due to less students, this may attract some parents to sign their children up.