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.
Socialism is a highly debated political belief that has much controversy surrounding it. The views of socialism have been around for centuries, but especially began to set forth after the French revolution which was based on certain socialistic beliefs. Like every political belief, socialism has a spectrum of subgroups who share a common view of socialism just with different flavors of the same belief. One of these so-called subgroups is known as Utopian socialism. What was the basic message of the utopian socialists?
Utopian socialists main goal is to persuade capitalists to surrender the means of production peacefully to the people. They believed that the government should have almost or total control over the people. Of course, like all areas of socialism, the ideal society of the Utopian socialists there would be no private property, all production would be under the control of a few specific producers, and no one would own anything. To conclude this was the basic message of the utopian socialists.
Liberalism is a term that has been distorted and changed over the years. Now the majority of us when we think of Liberalism we think of the views related more to the left of the political spectrum, but this view has not always been the same. The term classical liberalism is the term that describes the original definition of liberalism, which is more or less almost the opposite of the view that modern liberals have today. What is classical liberalism?
Classical liberalism is the view in which freedom is of utmost importance. Classical liberals believe in the individual freedom of the individual, which includes the beliefs of: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. Many classical liberals also believe in the concept of the free market. The majority of classical liberals disapprove of government intervention, and the overriding of an individual’s liberties. Thus, this is classical liberalism.
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.
Mark is one of the four gospels in the New Testament, which covered the same basic message and story, but through different perspectives and authors. Something that is seen quite prevalent is the resistance towards Christ from the Leaders of Israel, throughout the book of Mark, and the other books in the New Testament. According to Mark’s Gospel, what was the main issue dividing Jesus from the Leaders of Israel?
The Leaders of Israel played an important role in the society in which they lived. They were prominent figures who were respected, and were very much in control when it came in regards to religious practices, which were very much ritualistic. When Jesus came along, this changed for them; Jesus healed many people, with a number of ailments both spiritually and physically. He was able to do so because he had the authority to do so. Many people turned to Jesus for guidance and His teachings, instead of turning to the original Leaders of Israel. Because of these factors and many others the Leaders of Israel not surprisingly enough were envious, which turned into destructive resentment. Also the Leaders of Israel feared Him greatly, which greatly impacted their attitude towards Him. Even though they witnessed some of Jesus’ miracles themselves, they still rejected Him.
The largest factor in my opinion that divided Jesus and the Leaders of Israel even more was the truth that Jesus was God’s Son. This truth infuriated them and they tried to deny it, which made them attempt to accuse Jesus of crimes such as Blasphemy, even though it was clearly the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. They were too stubborn, envious, and prideful to accept Christ as their Savior. Even after Jesus’ physical death, His teachings and influence continued to live on regardless of the people like the Leaders of Israel who tried to stifle it.
The divide between Jesus and the Leaders of Israel was mostly due to the Leaders of Israel being envious and resentful. They did not want to accept Him as the Son of God, and rejected Him even though there were so many examples that they witnessed to feel otherwise. Truly this is an example of how jealousy and resentment fuels people to do wrong and evil deeds.
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.
Compulsory state education is a common norm in the west, with the majority of children in the west getting an education. In England in particular this system of compulsory state education system was established in 1870, which leaves the question: what does the evidence show about education in England before the compulsory state system was established?
At first most likely one thinks that before compulsory state education in England, few children were being educated in the lower classes, that education was merely for the rich. This was absolutely not the case. Before this compulsory education in England the percentage rates of literacy were already dramatically rising. In the later period of the 1830s, ninety five percent of fifteen year olds were literate. The compulsory education law in fact was established because there was a dramatic rise in people being educated, not the other way around. Also to note the reason why there was a drastic rise in people being educated was due to the increase in income and population.
In short, the evidence showed that education in England was already dramatically increasing before 1870, when compulsory state education was put in place.
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.
The Congress of Vienna(1814-1815), brought together the four major European powers: England, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. This was after the French Revolution which was a time of uncertainty in Europe. What were the major principles guiding the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna?
The four powers at this meeting had one goal which was to unite Europe after Napoleon. They believed that working together in this way would protect them from another devastating Revolution, such as the one in France. The key principles that were guiding these diplomats included: compensation, power balance, and legitimacy of the throne.
This Congress in Vienna influenced the replacing of Napoleon with Louis the 18th, who was the previous unfortunate king of France’s brother, which ultimately united Europe.