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?
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.
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.