1.Are voters informed? If not, why not? According to Professor Caplan, is the problem ignorance or irrationally?
They the voters are not informed at all. My reason being is that they(the voters) as a majority only focus on the appearance of those who are going to run for office. For an example, when Obama was run for office most african americans immediately decide to vote for him based on color and this is due to irrationally:not endowed with reason. In addition, they do not look for information about what he is for and this is due to their emotions for him since he was the first black president.
2. Professor Casey claims that the idea of political representation is an empty one. How does he defend this argument?
He defends it by stating that political representation can not and will not be able to represent everyone. In addition, it would be very difficult since everyone has different opinions. Such as, I would like strawberry and so does five hundred people while, one thousand likes chocolate ice cream and another two hundred likes vanilla ice cream. While they in office can not choose a group of people favorite ice cream over another group plus, they the people would prefer if they would represent only their ice cream: those who like vanilla ice cream would like if it was only their getting represented. See the picture?
3. Professor Hasnas claims that the idea of the rule of law is a myth.What does he mean? What purpose does the myth serve?
When he claims that the rule of law is a myth, he means the rule of law does not exist but was use as an excuse to have other people (humans) to rule over the majority. The purpose that myth serve was to get regular people to think that they were under the rule of law: The rule that is neutral,impartial,and objective, not the rule of Men. For instance, a law for paying one dollar eveytime one enter a store and by this the high ups get extra money,and every store gets money even if one does not but a thing. So is this is rule of law or Men?
1.How was the standard of living affected by the Industrial Revolution?
The Industrial Revolution affected standard of living in a good way: by adding more opportunities for them(the people). Also, before the Industrial Revolution there was only two options :make a profitable living in agriculture or have the tools necessary to enter an independent trade. After it, there was room in the economy for those who could do neither of these choices. There was factories that could only hire those ready for work for the wages offer to them and the wages were low. The women had went the factories as well so, they can have food to feed their children. The children too had to work as well for food and to help their families. In addition, it saved them, in strict sense of term, from death.
2. Evaluate this claim:”The New Deal was a wise series of government actions that healed the problems afflicting the economy.”
It wasn’t a series of wise actions but the opposite. Because the industries had to have a draft of production code themselves and all was pretty much equal.All had to have minimum wages,minimum prices,hours of production,production method,and so on. which is not good because there is no competition,and everything is equal. This does not heal an economy,it only makes it worse. In addition, industries had to comply(obey orders) and if they don’t they could get punished. Just by this there is no way the New Deal helped the economy and the people.
1. What kind of success did Africa have with governments that wielded great power over the different African economies?
There was no success in Africa because of the government that wielded a huge amount of power. The reasons why there was no success is because copper became expensive and, more and more money was taken away by the dictator.
2. What are some of the major arguments advanced the public choice school of economics?
One of the major arguments is voting. Because one would not always get everything they want from politicians: sometimes but rarely would happen but mostly get things you don’t agree on. For an example, person one claims that he is going to create more jobs, lower taxes, and the like yet, is 70% of what you agree and like. While, person twi claims he is going to stop wars , give out healthcare, and the like if in office however, is 30% of what you agree and like. Another is about government. My reason being is that people believe that government is their friend and helper (servant) . When government too has interest of it own. The majority of people tend to get this confuse. My reason being is because the people in the government are like us : they are humans too. But this with power over regular people.
3. what are front-loading and political engineering?
Front-loading and political engineering are some of the military production.Front- loading is where the military and/or government lies about the technical requirements and takes one money before it is done or tested. political engineering is the strategy of awarding contracts in as many different congressional in districts as possible. Then they make voters (people ) and congressional incumbents dependent on their money(military money) , by doing so they (pentagon’s political engineers) put pressure on them to always support front-loading programs even after their prices show. this makes it easier for the military to obtain the money the money of voters and congressional incumbents.Furthermore, it makes the military greedy for more and more money.
1. What are some of Marx’s criticism on capitalism?
He claims that capitalism deforms and stultifies people, and that capitalism is based on “exploitation” of the wage labor: that workers were pay only enough to live. In addition ,capitalism undergoes regular economic fluctuations (the business cycle)
2. how might you respond to the criticisms you discussed in question one?
When he critics that capitalism deforms and stultfies people; we know that isn’t true because capitalism helps people to improve,prosper,to aim higher & work more. Capitalism is not based on “exploitation” of the wage labor but on what the capitalist’s worker value that was created. However, it is true that capitalism does undergo a business cycle. Which is very good because it is good to know it’s cycle. Meaning that people would live a better life than always producing and/or doing what they want.
3. Discuss the following three terms in belief : A) what is to be done? B) New Economic Policy. C ) Ukrainian terror-famine(hunger).
A) Left to themselves, the proletariats (the working class) would never rise up in revolution. So the working class trade in unionism, which was all they would do. This taking a long time and caused Lenin to be impatient. So Lenin raised money for his revolutionaries through bank robberies and things of the like. B) was a policy to prevent government goons from grabbing food from peasants. Peasants would pay a tax in kind and then would be able to sell in open market, and there was a limited amount of private business allowed to operate. Another way to think of the New Economic Policy was “two steps forward and one step back” and was announced in 1921 in Russia. Lenin likely did this to improve Russia case : to help stop what does happening at the time, and to earn some money out of it. C ) The Ukrainian terror-famine was when there was a drop in food production. In addition, it was a very hard time for the peasants and had to reduce the average on what they planted because goverment goons would take most of what they produced. Also, many people had died during this time since there was less food to eat, so they had to fill their stomaches with things such as grass due to this.
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.