According to Deidre McCloskey, Why do Some of the Traditional Explanations for Western Prosperity Fail, and What in Her View is the Major, Unique Ingredient that Accounts for it?

The West, though it had many ups and downs throughout history overall has been prosperous and successful. Many scholars today have some form of explanation for the reasoning behind western prosperity; many of these explanations fail to explain certain aspects of this prosperity which leaves gaps in the explanations. Deidre McCloskey, a very well-known professor of economics, has more of a sensible explanation for this matter. According to her, why do some of the traditional explanations for western prosperity fail, and what in her view is the major, unique ingredient that accounts for it?

 Some of the traditional explanations for western prosperity include imperialism, private rights, resources, etc. Though those are important factors, they do not exactly account for a full explanation. McCloskey on the other hand stated that she believed that the most important explanation to western prosperity is the fact that the middle class was acknowledged in the west. The middle class is technically the backbone of society and was acknowledged as such during a lot of western history. This according to McCloskey is a major unique ingredient that accounts for western prosperity or overall success in history. 

What were the Different Arguments that Combined in Britain to Pave the Way for the Abolition of Slavery in that Country’s Overseas Colonies? 

Slavery was something that existed for quite a long time, but when Britain and a number of European countries adopted this destructive institution they enslaved Black Africans, which was what we commonly think of when thinking about slavery. Eventually, enough slavery slowly began to be abolished in Britain and other countries. What were the different arguments that combined in Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country’s overseas colonies?

Britain abolished slavery officially in 1833, some of the arguments that helped Britain pave the way for the abolition of slavery included: the Quakers who were very anti-slavery, and were one of the earlier voices to speak out against it. The famous political philosopher John Locke and a group of people known as the Levellers promoted the view of natural rights which all humans shared, which was another large influence. Also, people during this time made arguments on humanitarianism, which mainly discussed the horrible treatment of slaves, not exactly abolishing it.

In short, these were the different arguments that combined in Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country’s overseas colonies?

What was the Standard of Living Debate?

The standard of living is a very controversial and discussed topic. Scholars throughout history have debated this topic on numerous sides; such as the side of the standard of living in other countries compared to one another, or the side of comparing the standard of living from each decade or century. What was the standard of living debate?

The standard of living debate was the debate between scholars on the topic of: did the industrial revolution improve the economic situation or make it worse. Industrialization brought much more jobs and more options for jobs. These new jobs of course had long hours and were very difficult and hard on the employees physically. But people have always done heavy manual labor, even before the Industrial Revolution. People before the Industrial Revolution did heavy farm labor, which was just as hard or even harder than the industrial jobs people now had. 

Another important question that came into play in this debate of standard of living, is the question of child labor. Child labor has always existed; it had existed long before the Industrial. Children had to do heavy manual labor on their family’s farm, way before the Industrial Revolution began. Now, these scholars on the majority agree that the Industrial Revolution improved living conditions because it brought forth more opportunities to a wider range of people. Thus, this was the standard of living debate. 

What, in a Nutshell was the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century and continued on throughout the majority of the 19th century. It was a time when industry began to boom, and products were being manufactured faster than ever before. But in a nutshell what was the industrial revolution?

The Industrial Revolution was a period in history where the effects of scientific and technological development were very apparent. Factories became a prominent change at the time with the creation of the manufacturing process. This pushed out products more quickly than ever before. This lowered prices, which enabled more people to be able to access more things. This improved the agricultural situation, and lowered the demand of agriculture because new and better tools were created to help the farmer. Overall this was a very exciting time in history, and was crucial in the development of the west.

What Points is Mary Wollstonecraft Making in the Excerpts I Read From the Beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What Would She Liked to See Changed in European Society?

Mary Wollstonecraft(1759-1797), was one of the earliest feminists in history. Her major work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, contained her major ideas and beliefs on the topic of women’s rights. What were some of the points that Wollstonecraft made in the excerpts I read from the beginning of her major written work? What would she like to see changed in European society?

Mary’s written work was intended to lift women up to the intellectual level of the men at the time. Mary did not like the qualities of the majority of women at the time, who in her opinion were frivolous and weak. Which was her reasoning on why women were not treated justly by men. She wanted women to now lift themselves up so they can be seen as intellectual beings instead of a beautiful object. 

How Does Friedrich Gentz Distinguish Between the American and French Revolutions? Do I See the Influence of Edmund Burke in His Thinking?

Friedrich Gentz(1764-1832), was a German diplomat and writer, who in his written work: The Origins and Principles of the American Revolution, Compared With the Origins and Principles of the French Revolution, compared the American and French revolutions. How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and the French Revolutions? Do I see the influence of the Irish statesman, Edmund Burke in Gentz’ thinking?

Gentz distinguished between the two revolutions on the note of tradition; both revolutions revolved around tradition but in different ways. For example the American revolution revolved around preserving and defending the old traditions and ways of England such as freedom, which was being changed by the English themselves. The French Revolution on the completely opposite note wanted to destroy and get rid of everything from the past, to demolish everything from the past government, regardless of the fact that some of those traditions are in place for a good reason. Edmund Burke’s influence is seen in Gentz’ thinking because some of the specific points that Gentz made in his comparisons were quite similar to those of Burke’s, who was critical towards the French Revolution.

Thus, the way that Friedrich Gentz distinguishes between the American and French Revolution is by pointing out how both revolutions revolved around tradition one way or another, in opposite ways. His thinking is influenced by Edmund Burke who was critical of the French Revolution.

The Principles of the French Revolution in its First Three Years

The French Revolution(1789-1799), was a very tense and heated situation, which quickly accelerated into full on chaos and destruction. But what were the principles of the French Revolution in the early years of the Revolution, or the first three years of the Revolution?

The first three years of the Revolution was the laying of the foundation of a new government, which included a new constitution. This was the time when the lands of the church were being confiscated, and the church was beginning to receive pressure into changing the way it was run. The first three years were probably the most reasonable and mellow, but after this period of three years things went into further madness, with the execution of many individuals. Thus, these were the principles of the French Revolution in its first three years.

What Happened (Involving the Third Estate) During the Meeting of the Estates General that Set the French Revolution in Motion?

France during the later period of the 18th century was in complete disarray, with financial struggles, and a number of other problems, which ultimately led to the French Revolution. Before the Revolution itself a meeting was held of the Estates General; what happened at this meeting that set the French Revolution in motion?

The Third Estate(the commoners), of the three Estates in the Estates General, wanted equal voting rights, since they had no representation. At the beginning of the French Revolution the people involved wanted to be rid of heavy debt and taxes, while also abolishing the privilege of the aristocrats. The Third Estate also wanted a new constitution of France, which was one of their ultimate goals, which was eventually carried out in 1791.  

The French Revolution was probably one of the most impactful events in European history or at least the history of France. It completely altered the course of the French government, or how France was to be governed; changing it from a monarchy. 

What was the Constitutional Dispute Between the Colonists and the British Government that Led to the American Revolution?

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. 

Does the State Have the Right to Redistribute Wealth?

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.