Prompt: In your opinion, does the state have the right to redistribute wealth from some people to others? Why or why not?

What this question is really asking is: what is my opinion on socialism? Should the government have control over peoples earnings/the free market? Should we do our best to make everyone financially equal regardless of how much effort they personally have expended? I should start out by playing devils advocate and explaining the argument in favor of this overly empathetic commerce system. Imagine life as a lottery, you don’t know what your gender, skill set, genealogy, or social status shall be before this lottery. You could be born into a rich well-off family, or you could be born into the poorest hovel out there. Now imagine how much your opinion about this question would change depending on what social status you’re randomly assigned. If you’re born into the rich family your thought process would be: “No way do I want the government redistributing my assets, my family has worked hard for this and deserves to keep it.” But on the flip side if you’re born to a poor family your thought process would be: “Don’t we all deserve to live a well-off life? Don’t we deserve just one little slice of that enormous pie on that rich fellows table? He certainly can’t eat it all himself, and it’ll be going to waste just sitting there waiting to be eaten by him alone. Wouldn’t the fair answer be that he can share whatever he doesn’t need?”

The initial stance I would take hearing this dilemma would be: yes, he should share what he doesn’t need so that less fortunate people may be better off. But imagine that its not only one family asking for a slice of his pie, imagine its one hundred families. So the man is now forced to give up 40%, or 60%, or 80% of his pie. The people receiving the pie are much better off than they were prior, but the man who made the pie is significantly worse off. So the next dinner comes around and the man, knowing he must share his pie, doesn’t put as much effort into it. So the pies quality decreases, and the next dinner comes around and the quality decreases even more. Eventually the man is likely to say: “Screw it, I’m not making pie. Why should I put the effort in if I don’t get to reap the benefits of my labor? The people can make their own pie, I’m staying out of it.” And so the people depending on the pie go hungry.

The pie in this scenario is obviously representing money, the man is the worker, and the ones forcing the redistribution is the government. Lets use another scenario. Say there is a man planning to become a doctor, though his true dream is to become a dancer. He is ignoring this dream strictly because becoming a doctor will make him much more financially successful, although it is also a much more rigorous career choice. Now lets say a tax is introduced that will take half of this doctors income in order to fund the financially stifled dancers of the community. Would the doctor really continue his rigorous occupation if there was no financial benefit? My guess would be he’d change his ways and follow his dream of becoming a dancer, because if he’s not going to get a financial incentive he may as well get a emotional incentive. Now there are no doctors to give money to the dancers, and too many dancers depending on the doctors to pay their rent. So everyone loses. Depending on the government to provide financial support seems at first glance like a Robin Hood scenario, when in reality its the Sheriff of Nottingham wearing a mask.

The only way to truly make everyone equal is to bring down the guy on top. Perhaps this vanquishes greed, but then again perhaps this vanquishes our planets best effort. Perhaps we should be striving to climb the ladder of evolution, and bringing down the guy on top actually hinders our collective efforts to better ourselves. Though, its equally as likely that the one we think of as the most righteous is actually a snake. Perhaps cutting them all down to the everyman level is the only way to be sure the evil is destroyed. But is that worth taking the chance of killing the angel along with the demon?

But of course life isn’t as simple as a black and white metaphor, and like anything taxes and government redistribution really come down to a battle of avarice vs charity. People want to help each other out, they want to give a leg up to the little guy. People also want to hoard their wealth, and will look for any loophole they can to keep from giving it away. So the most slippery of the rich will always do the same thing: use the things we want against us. Use charity as a ploy to fuel avarice. Make the ant poison look as delicious as possible so we’ll unknowingly bring it to our queen and wipe out our colony. Its a game of wits, ethics, deception and ambition. A living chess board, where the winner gets the riches and the loser wallows in financial and/or physical despair. Charity needs to be consensual, but when that charity becomes overly self aware it can start riding the system for its own benefits. It can hide its theft and sadism behind a veil of helpfulness and compassion, and in todays world that sort of disease seems to be infesting more than you’d think. But I’m only sixteen, and this sort of filth is much bigger than I am. Give me a few more years to fully wrap my head around it. I can figure out some scrap of a solution to improve the darkest and most complicated parts of our economics, but let me get all the way through puberty first. Haha.

To properly answer the question: theres not a black and white solution yet. There are flaws behind any answer I could give, and so many real world points to drive home that I  could write ten thousand more words on top of this one thousand. The best I can give at the moment is: there does need to be some limit on how much income somebody can hoard. Once one reaches this limit they should be required to give some of their wealth back into the commerce system. But people should also have differing wages and taxes depending on their occupation, and the amount of time and effort required to get into that occupation. It shouldn’t be seen as a rich vs poor scenario, because at the end of the day we’re only human and we all contain bits of greed. Instead of rich vs poor it should be seen as consensual charity vs avarice, but even in that world we need to keep a strict eye on charity to be sure avarice doesn’t infect it. Its certainly a conundrum, as everything to do with government procedure seems to be. But as long as all of us who are on the side of liberty, prosperity, and freedom keep on fighting the good fight and don’t get swayed by the seduction of sin I know we’ll be able to vanquish the tyrants.

Question 1: Discuss two weak points in the views of Karl Marx, and explain what’s wrong with them.

The main flaw in Marxist theory is generalizing that all bosses are lazy money grubbers that over work their employees while they sit around doing nothing. This is actually what Marx believed, and his economic theories are firmly based on this ridiculous notion. If running a company was passed down through bloodline this could become an issue, but it’s not. Ownership and management over a company is exchanged to another after that individual works extremely hard to gain the trust and respect of their peers. They have to bust their asses (excuse my crude phrasing) for years climbing the business ladder and proving they have what it takes to manage a company. Then when they gain control of the company they have to work even harder! Because if they don’t the company falls apart, being the manager means you have the responsibility of actually MANAGING the business.

They have to understand what will be most efficient for the employees, what will speed up the production process, buying and trading raw materials, dealing with business rivals, managing machinery, dishing out fair wages, understanding the market and generally keeping the business above water. I could go on, but it varies so drastically from business to business that the list of boss responsibilities could be an entire essay by itself. Now compare this to the way Marx views these managers and you’ll realize how absurd his movement really is. “Capital is dead labor, which, vampire like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.” God that guy used a lot of comma splices, but thats beside the point. Capital is dead labor, huh? Which lives only by sucking living labor? With how much Marx talked about his disrespect for dehumanization you’d think he could address this “dead labor” as the actual individuals behind it. The individuals working their hardest to keep their employees happy, the market happy, and any partnering companies happy. Now I’m not saying there aren’t any corrupt bosses out there, but I am saying the majority of bosses earned their title through a tremendous amount of effort. Describing this effort as simply as “living more the more labor they suck” is like saying the farmers are mooching off their hoes and taking advantage of their crops. Its a total missed shot at who’s actually doing the most labor.

The second huge flaw in Marxist ideals is the belief that people will be happier, work more efficiently, and be more “aesthetically satisfied” with the abolition of private jobs and private property. I’ll start with private jobs. Marx believed that instead of everyone specifying in a single field and slowly mastering that skill it would be more efficient to switch and trade jobs regularly. Think of it like switching from station to station in an elementary school classroom, everyone gets a turn at everything. Marx stated that most folks choose an occupation and stick with it because of the money it provides, but that over time they acquire a spite for the job and loose some sense of aesthetic appreciation because of it. He said if we didn’t have to worry about income (instead being provided the necessities by the government) we’d have the freedom to explore occupations and appreciate each one more. But I argue that we already have the freedom to explore occupations and choose the one we find the most satisfaction in, and we also have the freedom to choose a job that gives us no satisfaction but provides a steady income. Marx’s suggestion of switching jobs all the time actually limits our freedom and especially our growth, as instead of becoming a master in one field everyone knows a little about every field. I argue that the satisfaction of, for example painting a mural would be dulled because everyone else is forced to learn mural painting as well. You wouldn’t be able to say “With my hard work and dedication I was able to create something unique and financially/spiritually uplifting.” Because it wasn’t your hard work and dedication, and you aren’t whatsoever unique. You were assigned a brief study of that field, just like everyone else. And now instead of refining the skills you find such satisfaction in you must move on with the herd to something else. Marx’s idea to remove the dehumanization from economy and let everyone feel special takes away the natural and organic uniqueness experienced by people who actually put the effort in by their own freewill.

Now lets talk about private property. I’ll first lay out Marx’s view on it: “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Now perhaps in Marx’s day the homeless population was booming, and although it is still substantial today I wouldn’t describe it as nine-tenths of the population. What Marx is really saying is: “I see the intelligent and ambitious people have earned themselves a steady income and a house, but I also see the jealousy of those who haven’t put the effort in. Lets give those people the houses!”

Now, I in no way mean to seem unempathetic, many people have simply gotten the short end of the stick and their lack of housing funds is in no way a lack of effort on their part. The housing market is crazy, jobs can be unpredictable, and many people don’t know where to start. But theres a quote thats been around since the beginning of life, a quote that rings with such truth that it’s buried in the psyches of all living things. A quote that works as well in economics as it does in the most simple hunter-gatherer society, a quote that is the birthplace of organic competition. “Survival of the fittest.” From the smallest insect to largest blue whale this quote defines the mental/physical training, luck, and effort required to continue existence on this beautiful planet. This quote is also what Karl Marx aims to destroy. For in a socialist or communist society it is no longer survival of the fittest, no matter the effort expended everyone gains the same rewards. This allows the lazy of us to bask in their own sloth, and makes the hard workers out there feel like their effort is pointless. Why expend the effort? That guy wasting his life away sleeping all day gets paid the same amount, so why not just do the same? As you can imagine this not only fails to improve the efficiency of production, but it also lets the government build and build to a point of corruption. The bigger a government gets, the bigger the greed and pride of the people running it get.

Individuals are more different today than ever before, we each have a different dream, a different skill set, and a different amount of ambition. We are also creatures of convenience, and will usually choose the most convenient path to get what we want. Communism ironically capitalizes on this convenience, trying to make everyone economically similar in a world that thrives because of our differences. It tries to give the same amount of opportunities, luxury, and wealth to everyone; although this is kindhearted in theory it always backfires. Trying to remove your human sins to reach enlightenment ironically gives more power to the sins you were trying to eradicate in the first place. The same goes for economics, trying to empower people to work harder by providing everyone the same wage disempowers those who were originally putting in the most effort. Although capitalism has many flaws (don’t even get me started) it also provides a fair base for everyone and a fair ladder to climb. It turns livelihoods into a sort of game, a game that you have to be extremely strategic and ambitious to win. This creates competition, and that competition expands and improves the market. Things get done because people want functioning commerce, not because the government one day declares “Everyone shall win the game!” People play the game more efficiently and the wheels start turning faster because there’s such a pressure, because its a matter of life or death. People work harder because they want to have a better and more financially successful life. They bust their asses to become the manager of the company, that’s why the manager has a higher wage than the employee. The manager is not a parasite capitalizing on the employees under him, but rather the unseen puppet master putting in the most amount of thought and energy to keep the business above water. Suddenly giving the employee as high of a wage as the one actually putting in the brain power to run the company makes the manager ask the question: “Why should I put in the work?”

 

 

Question 1: Discuss several of Spooner’s arguments against the idea that Americans have consented to their government in a meaningful way. Do you find Spooner persuasive? Why or why not?

Spooner stated that to reap the benefits of government (such as protection from crime) one must consent to live under the authority and laws of that government. But, how exactly do we give consent? Does someone come to your door with a contract for you to sign stating you consent to the governments regulations? Do you take a pledge as a young child, making you honor bound to respect the governments authority? Of course not, but you live here and you accept the benefits of government, so you’ve given something called tacit consent. Tacit consent is implied consent, its the idea that: “Well you live in this country and you haven’t packed up and left, so obviously you’re fine with the government having authority over you.” You have the right to vote, the right to be protected from violence, and the right to have your private property legally under your name; so because you’re reaping governmental benefits you’ve given tacit consent. Spooner acknowledged this, but he believed that it’s an unfair arrangement. Spooner argued that the only way not to give consent is to leave the country, and for many people this is an impossible option. Many people don’t have the funds, or they simply don’t want to move to an entirely new country and culture. Do they still give tacit consent, even though they want no part in the system? By the governments standpoint: yes. Even if they would choose not to consent, by not leaving the country they’re forced into consent. Voters are said to have given consent, even if they’re using their vote to try diminishing government control. They still participated in the vote, and therefor are forced to accept the outcome despite disagreeing with it. Spooner argued that there is no way to live in a government controlled country and not consent to the governments authority. No other business uses this tacit consent, because there’s no way to force everyone to truthfully consent. He argued that there should be a way to step out of the system if one wants to, to neither live under the authority of or gain any benefits from the government.

Question 2: Is there a “right to free speech” in the abstract, or is the question of free speech a root matter of property rights?

Free speech seems like an abstract law at first glance, a law that allows individuals to speak their mind when they feel the need to. But to truly understand this law you have to take the bigger picture into account, and the bigger picture tends to be rooted in private property. Because the government has authority over the laws you’d assume they also have authority over free speech. But the one thing the government doesn’t have authority over is private property, and because of this free speech morphs and changes from property to property depending on what the owner thinks is appropriate. For example, it’s obvious to most that if you yelled “fire” in a crowded theater you’d be forced to leave. Yelling “fire” would cause a panic, and the owner of the theater would have the jurisdiction to escort you from the property. This is the owners authority, not the governments. It’s the same with any other piece of private property, the owner maintains the authority over what can be said. If you went to a friends house and started insulting his wife for example, even though this falls under free speech the friend has the authority to ask you to leave if you continue this behavior. Though you could call this keeping the peace or simply having common decency, the strict definition boils down to private property and the owner having authority over what is said on that property.

Question 1: What happened in France during the revolution of 1830?

In 1930 the liberals of France were very unhappy with the ideals and ruling style of Charles X. Charles was an ultra, the political opposite to the liberals of the time. He started out favorably, but his popularity thinned with the laws he introduced (such as a death penalty for anyone profaning the Eucharist). The Chamber of Deputies wrote up a vote of no confidence in the government, and Charles shot back by shutting down the Chamber of deputies, largely limiting freedom of press, and drastically lowing the number of eligible voters. People began protesting, and the number of liberals throughout France skyrocketed. Charles was overthrown and soon after fled, making way for a new king in the form of Louis Philippe. Philippe was a lot more middle ground in his political opinions, and although having several faults he was much more popular with the people than Charles X.

Question 2: Why did Karl Marx think socialism was superior to capitalism?

Karl Marx believed that with central planning done by the government we’d be able to more adequately make use of the work force. He believed the three main flaws of capitalism were: people remaining unemployed, factory owners milking their workers without providing equivalent payment, and people tiring of their jobs and thus working less efficiently. His solutions for all of these complaints was strict central planning. He said that instead of having one job your entire life it’d be better if the government switched everyone around from job to job. Everyone would do a different job daily, and this way no one would ever develop a spite or loathing for their job. The government would also own and pass around all the equipment, so instead of there being a single factory owner the factory equipment would be jointly owned. Because everyone is apart of the working force and no one is freeloading or commanding without actually contributing, Marx said that things would be produced better and faster. He also said people would be able to work less, since everyone would be contributing equally.

Question 1: Summarize the arguments either of Spencer or Molinari (whichever one you read this week)

Gustave de Molinari was a classical liberal, known mostly for his radical views about government monopolies. This week we read his 1849 work entitled “The Production of Security.” Molinari views society as a naturally evolving and changing entity, a community that is formed by people working together rather than by the state. Because society is created naturally, Molinari believed that it naturally forms laws for itself. One of the laws Molinari recounted states that when a government creates a monopoly around a product that product not only increases in price but also decreases in quality. Because of this Molinari believed security should be left up to the free market. He said the government is formed to provide people security, but he believed that with that power granted the government will continue to expand and eventually charge people extra money for said security.

What were the characteristics of neoclassicism? Give one example of neoclassicism and show how it embodies at least one of these characteristics.

Neoclassicism was an 18th-century cultural revival that reintroduced the ideas of classical simplicity, symmetry and Roman inspired visual art. It takes inspiration from the 16th-century Renaissance Classicism, which focuses’s on depicting famous and personal events through realism and simplistic detail. Johann Joachim Winckelmann was one of the major writers at the time who popularized neoclassicism, along with a new generation of young artists who finished their “Grand Tour” across Europe and returned home with many newly discovered Greco-Roman ideas and ideals. The tomb of Pope Clement XIV is a wonderful example of neoclassicism. It emphasizes a near macabre simplicity, depicting two mournful figures in melancholy lighting grieving over the loss of the Pope. In contrast Pope Alexander VII’s tomb is colorful and flowing, depicting several figures holding children and looking to the Pope with wonder rather than grief. This baroque art style reminds me of a visualization of heaven rather than the neoclassicism depiction of death and sorrow.

What were the characteristics of Romanticism? Give one example of Romanticism and show how it embodies at least one of these characteristics.

Romanticism was competing with neoclassicism during the 18th-century, and eventually overtook it as time progressed. While neoclassicism highlights the simple and daily struggles of humanity, romanticism is quite the opposite in the sense that it highlights the hopes, dreams, individuality, and bizarre nonconformity of humanity. It often looked to nature for inspiration, seeing the world through a much more spiritual outlook than its forefathers. Romanticism is focused on emotion, doing its best to depict this emotion through visuals and music rather than with words. Hector Berlioz is an example of romanticism, his Symphonie Fantastique is meant to express his relationship and the emotions hes experiencing through the chords and harmonies. It puts extreme emphasis on his humanity, and the strange fantasies, longings and emotional turmoil that his obsession with a woman is creating. The music is meant to tell a story without having to spell anything out, the tune itself is meant to endow upon the listener the same emotions that Berlioz felt as he wrote it. But, just as human emotions, the music travels out of the realm of simple romance and lets us take a dive into Berlioz’s subconscious fears and conflicts. In one point Berlioz has a dream sequence where he murders his lover and is sentenced to beheading. The music does a wonderful job at displaying this without having to say anything; it builds and builds before the ax is swung, then has a few soft trailing thunks as the head bounces across the ground. Gruesome though it may be it tells a very clear story without having to resort to lyrics, the melodies and tune changes carry the story along. This is the driving point of romanticism. It’s meant to show, not tell, the humanistic flaws and experiences of individuals.

Prompt: Is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools?

Churches and schools are both places of education. Both are created to teach people, particularly the youth, a tailored worldview and discipline method. Both are about teaching people how to improve their lives, whether it be a financial or spiritual improvement. Something else these two places of learning share in common is they both have a hierarchy of individuals who decide what is being taught. In churches the preachers calls most of the shots, and usually they stay faithful to the scriptures. In schools the hope would be the parents are the sovereignty, but unless the parents are the ones paying for schools to remain open its doubtful they’re designing the lessons. “He, who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

In 1833 Massachusetts became the last state to stop government funding of churches, then four years later they became the first state to start government funding of schools. Did Massachusetts have too much money at the time? Was it just a coincidence? What I’ve learnt in this course is when it comes to government funding, nothing is a coincidence. The likelier reasoning behind this is the heads of state in Massachusetts realized the best way to have control over the masses is to have control over what the youths grow up learning. And the best way to do that is to buy the schools. Once they pay for them, they own them, and once they own the education the education becomes part of the monopoly.

State funded schools and state funded churches are very similar, but they do have some differences. For instance in most churches the scriptures or literature of study has already been written, governments can only change the Bible so much. But in state funded schools the government has the right to teach whatever they want. They bought the schools through funding, and so they call the shots. Schooling has transformed from a sought after education, to a feared and draining competition. I call it competition, because that’s what it seems to be. It seems to be a worldwide competition to see who can get the best test results, no matter how hard they have to work the students.

This is the true nature of common core, an education tailored by and for bureaucrats and state officials. If you’ve ever wondered why kids all seem to hate public school, why violence within schools is rising while performance level is dropping, or why alternative and home schools are getting more and more popular it’s because public schools are tailored more to benefit the state than the students. Students are labeled with and graded by numbers, which can make many students feel like their self worth is only correspondent to how well they do on tests. Standardized tests do not measure understanding, they measure memorization. But it is this memorization that makes the schools money, and it is this memorization that gives the government a leg up in the worldwide competition. Instead of letting the student follow their passions they are assigned what they will learn. After receiving their assignment they cram the information, then forget most of it after the required test is complete. This is neither an efficient nor healthy method to educate the youth. It puts an enormous amount of unnecessary stress and pressure on people that are already in a naturally stressful and frightening time in their lives. It promotes cheating, self blame and completely undermines any forms of creativity.

The suicide rate among ten to fourteen year olds doubled between 2007 and 2014. These are the same years many states adapted the common core education system and the rigorous tests that come with it. This is the first time in which suicide has passed up car crashes as the leading cause of death for middle schoolers. In attempting to make our education system more like the systems of South Korea and China (two of the highest preforming nations when it comes to standardized tests) we’ve also brought over the extreme pressure, trauma and mental deterioration that comes with the good grades.

In South Korea youth suicide is a national epidemic. According to the National Youth Policy Institute in Korea one in four students consider suicide. Their tests emphasize memorization instead of real life application, yet passing the tests can be the difference between a life of work and riches and a life of homelessness. This puts so much pressure on the students they hardly have any time to discover themselves or spend time with friends and family. A little more than 75% of Korean students starting in elementary school attend “cram school”, an after school program where they do little else but prepare for tests. It can last late into the evening, and as the name suggests crams the students with any and every detail related to the nearest test.

In Shanghai China students have some of the highest grades in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (or OECD), but suicide and abuse are an enormous issue. Teachers at the Hubei Xiaogan No. 1 High School in central Hubei actually hooked their students up to IV drips so they could continue studying after becoming physically exhausted. On top of any abuse from teachers with crazily high expectations, self harm is a depressing yet daily occurrence. Brook Larmer of the New York Times visited dormitories in Maotanchang, where she found metal mesh covering the windows of the dorms to prevent students from jumping to their deaths.

These unhealthy methods of education seem to get stronger in the US every year. In many states the students ability to go to their next grade is not based off age, but off test scores. Instead of juniors or seniors students seem to now be labeled as underperforming, acceptable, or advanced. The learning style, personalization, and environment the students will experience is completely dependent on the tests. Even if a student passes their class they may not be able to move on because of some mistake on a test. The results of this can be so heartbreaking to students that they can be moved to do the unthinkable. Marion Brady from Alternet tells the tale of how a nine year old boy from florida attempted suicide after failing the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test).  His mother explains how he attended a summer program and completed a retest, but still failed by only one point. He was absolutely crushed.

“I … ran down the hall to [his] room, banged on the door and called his name. No response. I threw the door open. There was my perfect, nine- year-old freckled son with a belt around his neck hanging from a post on his bunk bed. His eyes were blank, his lips blue, his face emotionless. I don’t know how I had the strength to hoist him up and get the belt off but I did, then collapsed on the floor and held [him] as close to my heart as possible. There were no words. He didn’t speak and for the life of me I couldn’t either. I was physically unable to form words. I shook as I held him and felt his heart racing. “I’d saved [him]! No, not really…I saved him physically, but mentally he was gone…The next 18 months were terrible. It took him six months to make eye contact with me. He secluded himself from friends and family. He didn’t laugh for almost a year…”

This is not by any means a one time incident. The national suicide rate is rising higher every year. Students, especially around testing time experience an extreme dose of stress, and the school nurses and counselors report their offices always filling up with physically sick kids on test days. As someone who has experienced this exact problem myself, and all the physical and mental drain that comes with it I can say first hand that the state funded schools and common core tests are killing as many as they are educating. This may not be the states goal, and there are many other factors at play working against students. But the pressure of common core testing is one of the big faults of our school system, and it’s up to the state to fix it. “He, who pays the piper, calls the tune.” If the state wants the tune of rising student suicide rates than they can ignore this problem. But if they want educated, happy, balanced and well-off students than the common core education system needs to be seriously rethought.

 

 

 

Prompt: Why did he take the coins off the ship?

 

Robinson Crusoe is more than a tale of survival, though that is its main hook. It’s a tale of rebellion, karma, and attempted redemption. Crusoe gets shipwrecked on a deserted island, the crew of the ship assumedly drowns, and Crusoe is left alone to figure out his survival method as well as his true character. Most people know the gist of this story, as Hollywood has milked this formula dry. But only by reading the book can you realize the true philosophy: the irony of man, the void caused by insurgency, and the cycle of never-ending pillage created by sin. These and many more hard to swallow lessons lay between the lines of this novel, and this is the reason it has stood the test of time.

Though I have written about Crusoe’s journey prior to this, i’ll assume you to be a fresh pair of eyes and start at the beginning. Crusoe seemed to have knack for disobeying those important to him. It started when he ignored his fathers advice to stay on land and instead set sail. That evening his ship was ravaged by storm, and he made an oath to God that he would return straight home if he survived ’til morning. He indeed survived, but without a universal knife to his throat he forgot the importance of his earlier oath. He continued on sailing, and that night an even darker storm reared its head. This is an example of ironic punishment, a theme that runs rampant through this novel.

Skipping ahead slightly Crusoe is captured and made into a slave. He gains the trust of his master, and at his first opportunity he steals a ship and escapes. Seeming to learn nothing from his previous enslavement he also kidnaps a young cabin boy. They sail to Africa, kill a lion and a tiger, and take their skins. They soon meet a captain of a large ship who buys their vessel and feline skins, and generously offers them a free ride. With this money Crusoe buys a plantation, and soon becomes wealthy. But he forgets (or more likely ignores) the dehumanization and grief caused by being forced into slavery, and he decides he wants to start buying slaves himself. He sails towards Africa hoping to steal a few folks, and this is when his ship is wrecked and he is marooned on uninhabited land.

Luckily for Crusoe his ship isn’t completely destroyed yet, and he’s able to climb aboard and take various supplies. He takes tools and clothing, food preserves and building equipment. But theres one thing Crusoe takes that has a much less practical purpose in his current environment: coins. Crusoe briefly questions himself about this choice, but takes the coins anyway. This is showing Crusoe’s illogical humanity. He’s in denial about being trapped there indefinitely, and maintains some sense of hope that he’ll be rescued. This is certainly a good way to keep yourself sane in this scenario, but Crusoe should be fueled by the idea of freedom instead of wealth. The fact that he takes up valuable space with something as useless as coins shows that he appreciates money just as much as survival. He’s lost his animalistic instincts for the comfort and economy that human society creates, and in a survival situation he’s wasted time and energy for nothing.

Question 1: What does the evidence show about education in England before the compulsory state system was established?

Despite what most modern education representatives would have you believe compulsory state education is not a flawless solution to educating the youth. In England compulsory education was lawfully introduced in 1880, this law stated that all children must attend public or private schools until the age of ten. Later the age required would increase to thirteen, and expand to include deaf and blind children. But before 1880 historians have found most english children were attending schools, and in fact the quality and diversity of the things being taught were actually better. Its surprising, seeing that England was very poor at the time. You’d think parents would just stick their children into factories to help keep the family financially above water, but it turns out despite having little money parents would indeed scrape together what little they had for their childrens benefits. In 1833 the net worth spent on education was about 1%, by 1990 this had dropped to 0.7%. Quantity of schooling had indeed grown, but the quality and successfulness of the schooling had fallen. Apprenticeships had drastically decreased, and instead of choosing what they wanted to learn the children were now forced to all learn the same skills and knowledge. In todays world we can clearly see how little children appreciate this forced schooling, where as before children had been desperate to be educated. The state stepping in had not only destroyed many private schools through raised taxes, but had also turned the privilege of education into a joyless black and white bureaucracy.

Question 2: What is classical liberalism?

It’s surprising, almost humorous, how distinctly swapped liberalism and conservatism have become over the years. Classical liberalism supported freedom of religion, freedom of speech, smaller government interference and private property. Classical liberals pushed for a laissez-faire economy, which in modern tongue would translate to a free market or capitalist society. They wanted utilitarianism, which states people should be free to go about their own affairs with little to no government involvement. Of course, like any group of people, there were those that wanted the state to step in on certain subjects: such as schooling, taxes etc. But I wouldn’t classify these people as classical liberals, they were just incorporating some liberal ideas into their own philosophy. Someone who was a full blown classical liberal was Gustave de Molinari. Molinari believed we should have a laissez-faire economy with no exception whatsoever. He believed the people should be free to build their own market, their own set of rules and regulations, and that no group should have the right to govern the masses.

Question 3: Choose one of the works discussed in lesson 83 and explain how it reflects the principles of classical liberalism.

Frederick Bastiat’s political commentary The Petition of the Candle makers highlighted the flaws of protectionism. In this story a group of candle makers make their plight known to the state. Their plight is that they are experiencing unfair competition, an equivalent to their candles is stealing their business and is impossible to compete against. Who is this all seeing business god of light? Well who else: the sun. The sun is stealing away the candle makers business by making light free for all. How are they supposed to compete with a price tag of zero? They can’t, so they take their plight to the government to enforce. And what is this enforcement that will guarantee the candle makers a pretty penny? Well its to force people to block the light from their homes. Block out their windows, doors or any small cracks the sun can seep through, for then they will be forced to buy candles. This story is supposed to be ridiculous, its making it known through an easy to catch method how silly protectionism can be if manipulated by greed.

Prompt: Did all four of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms promote liberty?

Each one of Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms promote a different outlook on how much power a government should have. The first two are fairly basic to classic American beliefs, while the latter two are far more ambitious and revolutionary. I’ll go over them in order.

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.”

This first freedom does promote liberty, it’s a fundamental part of our constitution. But already Roosevelt is referring to the entire world instead of just America, making his speech seem overambitious and rationally unattainable. America has a track record of sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and a US president specifically talking to the world instead of just to his own country seems more than a bit unnecessary.

“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.”

Again this is a freedom basic to our constitution, but just like the last Roosevelt shouldn’t be talking to the entire world. An American presidents job is to tackle the issues going on within the states, not to attempt fixing someone else’s problems for them.

“The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.”

This is where Roosevelt’s speech jumps the shark for me. It changes from a basic, yet harmless speech into a big government promoting power trip. A freedom from want, as Roosevelt describes, could only be accomplished by the government completely taking over the free market. Its akin to communism, the people gain this “freedom from want” because the government steps in and provides for them the bare necessities. This doesn’t at all take into account or even acknowledge the equivalent exchange the people would have to trade for this governmental take over (which most likely would translate to higher taxes), but it also hints at reforming the entire structure of the free market worldwide. Want is not something to be antagonized, want is the oil that keeps the wheels of free trade running smoothly. Without want (or in other words without a balanced number of consumers in comparison to the producers) the entire ecosystem of commerce falls apart.

I’ll use the example of the food chain, if all the prey is moved to a fenced in pen and provided with food from the government then it no longer has to go searching for food. If the prey no longer searches for food then it never steps foot into the predators domain, and with that the predators starve. Translated into economical terms this would mean the producers go bankrupt, for if the government provides for the people all that they need the people stop spending money elsewhere. I’ll give it to Roosevelt that it is a hopeful declaration, everyone wishes that all the nations of the world could live in a never-ending flourish of peace and providence. But economically speaking unless a major reform took place its simply not possible.

“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.”

If you thought that the last freedom was unattainably arrogant than Roosevelt just stepped up the worldwide domination proclamation to a whole new level. What Roosevelt just suggested is a worldwide pillage under the facade of a peaceful neighborly transaction. The “freedom from fear” is as hopefully naive as it is destructively brilliant. If someone wanted to completely uproot the way countries have bargained, exchanged, and protected themselves for the last few hundred years this would certainly be a effective way to go about it. Phrasing it as if repossessing all the weapons of the world would be bloodless is some of the best mass manipulation I’ve ever heard. In reality if someone were to attempt this it would be chaos. Many countries would simply refuse to hand over all their protection, and the ones who accepted would now be a massive target for any groups looking to attack the unprepared. Roosevelt was certainly an optimist, but in world affairs one needs to be more of a realist.

In conclusion Roosevelt’s speech was extremely ambitious, and it certainly seemed worldly peace was what the late president was after. But you can’t expect all the other countries of the world to act as your chess pieces, even if peace is the goal. Roosevelt should have focused on Americas internal issues instead of trying to reestablish a new worldly order. American presidents need to focus on bettering America instead of getting involved with other countries wirings, maybe then we could actually make a real positive difference towards our citizens day to day lives.

Prompt: “How important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms?”

In Daniel Defoe’s fictional autobiography The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, or more commonly known simply as Robinson Crusoe, the title character defies the advice of his family and starts a life out at sea. His father warns him of the misery this decision will bring, and his friends beg him to resist the urge for adventure and stay safe on dry land. Crusoe hears each party out, but eventually succumbs to the call of the sea and sets out on a voyage. Once he’s out on the water an enormous storm hits his ship, a universal reminder that Crusoe’s defiance of his loved ones will indeed bring misery. Crusoe is terrified, and prays a vow to God that he will return straight home if he survives the storm. The storm subsides, and Crusoe’s ship survives.

After the storm is gone the severity of Crusoe’s vow slips his mind, and instead of returning home he continues on his journey. That night another storm rips through the atmosphere, this one even darker and more destructive than the last. Crusoe pleads for forgiveness, but its too late and his ship goes down. The crew perishes, but Crusoe manages to survive on a small dinghy and is washed back to shore. For the second time Crusoe is given a chance to follow through with his vow, but he decides against it and looks for another ship. He meets a kind and generous captain who offers to give him a free ride upon his vessel. Crusoe rides with the captain for several months, managing to earn a decent amount of money during his time on the ship.

The generous captain suddenly dies, and the ship is ransacked by pirates. Crusoe is captured and forced to become a household slave. In his time as a slave he gains the trust of his master, who one day offers to take Crusoe and a few others out for a good time upon a ship. When everyones off their guard Crusoe throws one of his masters friends off the ship, then he steals a young cabin boy as his hostage/slave and escapes. He and the boy travel down beside Africa, where they see strange beasts who swim out to them and attempt to attack their boat. These beasts are revealed to be a lion and a panther, and Crusoe ends up shooting both and taking their skins back with him.

Crusoe certainly had luck on his side, as he meets a second generous captain who offers him a free ride to Brazil. This captain also buys Crusoe’s small boat and the two skins he had collected, and Crusoe uses the money he earns to buy a plantation. Crusoe becomes prosperous off this plantation, and eventually decides to get into the slave trade. But while on his way to Africa another violent storm picks up and Crusoe is castaway onto an deserted island. The ship he was riding somehow survives not too far off the shore of the island, but all of his other crew mates had perished in the storm. Crusoe collects whatever he can off the ship, and builds a primitive shelter for himself.

The storms in Robinson Crusoe represent the wrath of God, and only seem to appear when Crusoe rebells in some shape or form. The first storm appeared after Crusoe’s rebellion against his family’s advice, and the second one once his broke his vow to return home. The third, and certainly the most detrimental of the three, occurred after Crusoe decided to buy slaves from Africa for his plantation. So it seems that the storms are Gods judgement of Crusoe, muddling his path and wrecking his vessels. When Crusoe rebells, either against his family or simply against morality, God sends a storm of destruction to tear down Crusoe’s rebellion.