The hobbit

Hello, im Asiyyah. I have read the hobbit which is a very good book and i am now reading the two towers from the lord of the rings. because  the library didn’t have number one and im guessing that someone is reading it.  Anyways back on topic,  when reading the hoobit it made me feel good inside especially bilbo would help the dwarves out , also while reading it i could kinda picture it in my mind. but i hated the part about the spiders,trolls,and dragon, because in the story  when dealing with those characters the dwarves and bilbo had a dificult time. However, i loved when bilbo and gollum  were  using riddles.also, in my head i saw gollum getting out  of his boat and going towards bilbo.  In addition, i am going to buy the book and the lord of the rings!Did  anywho else read the hobbit?


Sweden and Nazi Germany

The main topics are going to be about Sweden and Nazi Germany. While the other  topic is about fascism. The first question is : The standard claim about  Sweden is that it shows  that society  can prosper without such a free market anf extensive government   intervention, what would be a good response  to this claim?  My response is: That  the claim is half-way right: about a society can prosper without an extensive government intervention but,  not the part where it mentions the a society  can  prosper without a free market . My reason being is that a free market  helps a society  to prosper and grow.  In addition to that , Sweden grew wealthy due  to an free market in the  nineteen-th century and early twenty-th century  and also  due to avoiding wars . By avoiding wars, they  saved lots of money to help society and expanded within as a whole, while not by going to war for land. Furhermore, there was more freedom and less taxes (inheritance,gift,wealth taxes abolished).   The second question is: What were the primary values of fascism?  The primary values if fascism was that it values a charismatic leader: having   great charm or appeal as a leader. It also values  political centralization,individual rights  are subordinate to the  good of the nation. As we know, centralization gives power only to those in the government group yet, a political one is the same since it is also  the government . Furthermore,we also know  that individual rights should be above  the good of the   nation. which  brings us to a conclusion; fascism is bad for  a nation and  people. And finally the third question: (part one of the question) what is life like for the businessman in Nazi Germany ? The socialist claim that fascism is just a late stage of capital and the freemarket? (part two of question). Life for  the businessman in Nazi Germany  was very difficult  because they had to  tons and tons of paperwork. In adddition, they also needed special lawyers  to help  them plus  lots of taxes, and fees on their backs. They have to know who to talk to and who not to talk to. (part two of third question) The socialist claim about fascism being the  late stage of capital and free market , seems   most unlikely  in my opinion. My reason being  is because fascism values things that  capital and the free market don’t.   Such as, it values political centralization when they value decentralization. The only thing that  they  might have in common  is they value a charismatic leader: to help them for selling a product.

The constitution

In this essay the topic is going to the constitution.  Nowadays, we don’t learn  facts and things about the constitution (mostly in public schools) in  schools. Which going to make  this interesting  and  important to  know.Also there are three questions in this one as well.  The first question is :”Is it unreasonable to confine ourselves from the text of the constitution. We should interpret the constitution broadly, to allow the federal governmant  to exercise powers we need it to exercise, even  if they aren’t actuallly listed in that  document”.  How would Thomas Jefferson respond to that statement? ” Yes, it is unreasonable to confine  ourselves to the text of the constitution. When it gives us, our rights as the people . Confine: to block.  Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t approve of this and would have reply ” That we don’t need to do that,just  to allow the  federal government  to exercise  those powers  if it isn’t in the constitution. When  the constitution was to limit the power of the federal government.”   While the second question is : 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?”  The idea of an “living  constitution” is where the constituion is changing on  a daily basis  or so.  For example , one day one  can drive a car and the folowing day they can not.  That the colonies wanted to be free of the “living constitution”  that came from the British. But  to be free  of it they had a war  that was for against a living ,breathing constitution and when they won. They decided to make a constitution that wasn’t always  changing  which is a written constitution while the British’s constitution was  unwritten. Then, they  became states which united together. Therefore, became known as the united states.  Finally , the last question which is :What is nullification? Nullification is a power to put limits on the federal government  and to say no to things that are  unconstitutuion. An example of this is that of Virginia and Kentucky resolution of seventeen-ninty eight of th federal government.  One of their resolutions is was that the states must refuse to comply when the federal government  goes beyond it’s powers.


In this essay, the topics are about politics.  The first is about models of society not celebrity  models just is you won’t misunderstand. The second one is about two theory  of the union,  while the third is about smaller political units.   I was going to do two topics but decided on three topics to do.  Back to subject,   the first question is : Describe the models of soceity laid out by  Althusius and Hobbes.  These are two main political models.    Althusius is a model where the power is shared by all. Meaning , that families,villages,provinces, and the leader of the people(such as, a king or president) get a share of power. In other words , it a society with series of levels. which allows people  to have rights and to be treated well. While,  Hobbes is a model where society is a single,flat plain:not a diverse array of social authories. Just a mass of individuals; power between themselves. In addition, they use this power to rule . This is called a central government where they use the government to rule. Athusius is a decentralized model and on the other hand, Hobbes is a centralized model.  The next question is :what are the compact and nationist theory of the union?  The compact theory  is about the union  which says that the states created the union and that the union us a collection  of states. Meaning that  the states came before the union snd that the union is  is  just a series of states. In addition, this means that the states are the original units and that’s why we say “united states are….” when we mention   the states and the union. On the other hand, the nationist theory is that  that the union created  the states and is  a single whole. In other words, the union came before the states and is not a series but one whole. Furthermore, the union is the original unit and that’s why some say “united states is…”  when they mention the states and the union. However,  now one knows the difference between the two and be careful with “are” and “is”     mentioning one of the two or both.  Followed by the third question, which is: Can a smaller political units contribute   to the cause of liberty? If so, how? Yes, by giving the people more freedom and less government. Which translate  into  decentralzation,  where everyone gets their rights and freedomwith less controling government . That is how it contribute to the cause of liberty. Meaning that it allows you to be you. Unlike centralization, where you have to be like  what the government wants you to be.