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. 

The Characteristics of the Family Government

From what I have learned this week about government, there are five institutional characteristics of a government. These characteristics are: sovereignty, authority or hierarchy, law, sanctions, and succession. But how do these characteristics apply to the family or family government? Also what is the source of family sovereignty?


Sovereignty deals with the question of “who’s in charge.” In the family the parents can set rules for their children, and have authority over their children. Meaning that the parents are in control over what the children can or cannot do. 


Authority relates to sovereignty. Parents have direct authority over their children which is what I mentioned above. The parents have this authority over their children until their children reach adulthood, which means that the children are now in charge of themselves because they are now independent.


Law deals with the question of “what are the rules.” The parents are in charge of making the rules for the household, and to also enforce these rules. Each family has a different set of rules for the household created by the parents. Of course these laws or rules must not break the law of the civil government or go against the word of God, so there must be a line with these rules.


Sanctions come in two forms, positive and negative. Parents in a family have authority over how they will impose sanctions, for example if their child misbehaved. Also parents have the authority to choose different sanctions for each child, based on the children themselves. Again there should be a line on what kind of sanctions; for example when it comes to abuse I think we can all agree that some forms of negative sanctions are plain wrong.


When it comes to succession and how it applies to the family, think of inheritance. The parents have the right or authority to give an inheritance to their children; and inheritance is a form of succession. Think about it, even though we normally think of succession as something that relates to political leaders stepping down and giving that position to a new person, inheritance is still a form of succession.

The Source of Family Sovereignty 

In my opinion I believe that the source of family sovereignty is from God, not the government or state. For example God created the institution of family, like he created other things. He gave the authority to the parents to be in charge of their children.


The five characteristics of government apply to the family unit in many ways, for example with authority: the parents of the family have direct authority over the children, and they make the decisions in regard to the children. The source of family sovereignty on the other hand in my opinion is from God, not the government.

Is the Family a Government?

The family has been a very important part of society from the beginning of time. Most people today have a family or are a part of a family. In my opinion a family can be considered an institution; and many aspects of society today would not be able to function well without families. But because a family is an important part of society and is considered by some an institution even, could you consider the family a government?

Yes I believe the family is a legitimate form of government. Why believe this is because the parents of the family manage the bills of the family, they impose positive or negative sanctions on their children, and finally they do in a sense make “laws,” for the household. What I mean by “laws,” in the sense of the family is for example things the family is permitted to do and what they are not permitted to do. Also parents are also in control of their children’s education in many ways, for example parents can decide if they want their children to go to public school, private school, or be home schooled. 

In conclusion, yes in my opinion the family is a legitimate form of government. The family is able to impose positive or negative sanction, manage the finances, and decide what form of education the children of the family are to be a part of. This is all very similar to the state government; for example the state government can impose positive or negative sanctions, and also manage the finances of the state.