Question 1: What were the major principles guiding the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna?

The major principles guiding the Congress of Vienna were balance of power, exchange of land, and an equivalent compensation for all. Tsar Alexander I of Russia wanted to rule over an extended portion of Poland, but Prussia (who by 1975 had taken control of Warsaw) wouldn’t hand it over without getting a piece of Saxony. Austria was unwilling to give up Saxony without receiving an equal trade, and after great debate they eventually ended up with a small section of northern Italy for their trouble. The powers were determined to not have another European war over territory, and decided the best thing to do to maintain peace would be to create a small self governing Polish state. This state they would allow Tsar Alexander to rule. This cooperation between the European powers is an example of what happens when people use logic and council to exchange land peacefully. Instead of losing countless citizens in a war for the territory, the different governments worked together to create an outcome which was beneficial to all.

Question 2: According to Rothbard, did compulsory state education emerge because governments simply wanted their people to become more knowledgeable, or were there other motivations at work?

The compulsory state education was originally started during the protestant revolution by people like Martin Luther and John Calvin. Their idea was for children to have the ideas and values of religion implemented into their minds from a young age. Once governments got ahold of the idea they decided to change it to their benefit. Now instead of being taught religion children would be taught governmental and political practice. They would learn the details of their country, from the barter system to the process of hierarchy. As compulsory state education grew territories that held elections began to catch on to the importance of early learning, and the ways they could use it to their advantage. Countries like the USA started teaching their children about the electoral congress and the politics of the state, and with this knowledge the children would be much more adapt to participate in politics when they became legal adults.

Prompt: Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later? Why or why not?

In Albert Jay Nock’s essay Isaiah’s Job Nock explains the theory of Remnants, and how philosophy can be passed down family lines for generations. In the essay a man named Isaiah is confronted by God. This God tells Isaiah to spread the word of his divinity and all that. But he also tells Isaiah that people will be skeptical, and that he must offer out the message gently and wait for the Remnants (the small quantity of people eager to believe) to find him on their own.

God tells Isaiah over time that small group of Remnants will transform into a large group, and as more and more years pass eventually they will become the majority. The small group of remnants will have children, and they will pass the message to those children. Those children will pass the message down through their children, and it will keep going until the message is a normal household belief. Much like how Christianity once was small and muted, and since the time of Jesus has obviously gained a much larger following.

Something the essay doesn’t touch on is what happens if the children of those original Remnants are themselves skeptical of their parents beliefs. What tends to happen in todays world is people want undeniable proof, and as science evolves faith tends to slow down. People move on from the past and into the future, so completely depending on word of mouth from past generations to grow a belief is extremely risky. But this is a work of faith, so we’re supposed to assume that this “God” talking with Isaiah is actually a holy deity. We aren’t supposed to ask any questions or do anything to gain a better understanding of this being, instead we’re ordered to do the equivalent of signing a contract without reading the fine print. So yes, the Remnants of one historical era can become the majority. But sooner or later fact grows stronger than faith, and a religion must adapt and change over time if they want to keep that title of majority.

Prompt: “In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism?”

Bernard Mandeville was an 18th century philosopher, and writer of the mock-epic poem Fable of the Bees. In this poem he compared society to a beehive, and used this analogy to describe what he thought would be the most beneficial to the economy. First he described vices, as in alcohol, drugs, casinos etc. He clearly was no fan of these lively temptations, but he explained that they played a drastic role in the circulation of wealth. People are creatures of convenience and pleasure, and no matter how hard you fight this lust for joy people will always find a way to get their fix. So, Mandeville explains, its better that we keep these vices legal and reap the financial benefit. Its better the producer of these can legally sell his goods and recirculate the benefits rather than hiding or hoarding them.

Speaking of hoarding, Mandeville had some very strong opinions on this topic. Avarice, or greed, Mandeville said is an enormous stick in the gears of economics. Financially successful people often find themselves battling with greed, and if they submit to the sin they may begin to find themselves hoarding their wealth. In Mandeville’s eyes this is the worst thing you can do with your money, as instead of that wealth being recirculated back into the economy its simply left alone to rot. Mandeville feels so strongly on this topic that he compares it to thievery, and actually says that if a thief were to steal from a hoarder they’d be more in the right than the victim of the theft. As the victim wasn’t using their wealth, only collecting more and more wealth for them to sit on. Although the thief does acquire the wealth illegally, he uses it to his personal benefit and recirculates it back into society.

The big idea of the poem is what people should use their money for if they want to make economics prosper, and Mandeville actually argues that prodigality and overspending is the way to go. He says that people should focus on having a consumer mindset. If consumers continuously spend on the most expensive items they can afford, then the  producers of these items will grow their wealth and spend it on the best they can afford. The producers become the consumers and buy expensive items from other producers, who then do the same and yada yada the economics wheel keeps turning.

This, though vaguely, does connect to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. As animals evolve they consume, perhaps not the material items we consume but an animal equivalent to them. The animals also have to fight to gain resources, similar to how we have to work to gain resources. The animal that wins gets to reap in the benefits. Because it won the fight it now has access to a high quality food source, and it and its offspring will grow stronger than their cousins who lost the fight. The cousins die off, and only the strongest animal with the best quality resources gets to continue its legacy. This is similar to what Mandeville believed, the only difference being he spoke of economics and luxury as opposed to nature and survival.

 

Question 1: What, in a nutshell, was the Industrial Revolution?

The industrial revolution started in Britain in the 18th century, then later spread across the the rest of Europe and eventually worldwide. New machines were invented, such as the power loom, the spinning jenny, and the steam engine; these machines revolutionized the way labor had been done prior. Goods were being created in a fraction of the time, and thus the price of these once expensive goods rapidly dropped. The lower class (who before the industrial revolution mainly worked agriculturally) was now able to take up jobs in the new and improved factory system. Although these factories were hard work they provided a much better income than agriculture, and because of this the population began to steadily increase.

Question 2: What was the standard-of-living debate?

The standard-of-living debate was a hot topic among scholars throughout the 20th century. The argument was over whether the industrial revolution helped or hurt the lower class. The side that thought it was harmful argued that the factories were dangerous, and that people were overworked and underpaid. They argued that people started protests calling for an end to poverty, which had never happened prior to the industrial revolution. And they also argued that child labor had increased, and that children were given hazardous and unsafe jobs within the factories. But these people arguing that the industrial revolution was harmful don’t take into account what the lower classes lives were like before they had the factory jobs. They had to work much more backbreaking labor out in the fields, and the children had to work right along with them. They worked simply to sustain themselves, and everyone was so poor that no one ever thought to protest. Before the industrial revolution there was no hope that poverty would ever go down, people were starving to death and living in horribly poor situations. The industrial revolution gave people a chance to make a living, and the child labor was actually made a lot more safe and sensible. Prices went down, and the population flourished since people could actually afford to take care of new children.

Question 3: What were the different arguments that combined in Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country’s overseas colonies?

There were several arguments thats called for an end to slavery. The most widely known of these was the statement which said every man owns his own person, and that all people should be given an equal and fair shot at creating their own lives. There was also the humanitarian argument, which said slaves should be treated with the same dignity as the average man. And finally there was the economic argument, which said that slaveholders are losing more financially than they are gaining from owning slaves. Slaves were only made to labor during certain parts of the year, when plants were in their growing season. But when plants were out of season the slaves still needed to be fed, clothed, etc. To keep the slaves alive and well the owners needed to provide funds, and after all those funds had been organized out the owners would be lucky if they kept any of the income the slaves originally earned for them.

Prompt: “Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state?”

 

This is like asking the question: Which promotes greater personal responsibility, putting personal effort into creating a personal income, or relying on a large group to make your financial decisions? Phrased this way the answer is fairly obvious. The free market allows people to communicate and bargain face to face, the state doesn’t step into the exchange unless one party tries to steal from the other. People can build up their resources, hold onto them, trade them for other resources they need, and help expand the market while also expanding their personal inventory.

The welfare state by contrast requires a collection of people acting on majority vote, which can greatly fog up an individuals morality. If a man were asked to steal from his neighbor, nine times out of ten he’d refuse. If a man were asked to steal from his neighbor to help out a different neighbor, he’d still refuse a majority of the time. But if a man were asked to steal from his neighbor to help out the entire neighborhood, well now things seem a bit different. The scale of things has increased, and the empathy the man once felt for his neighbor has been spread out across a much larger number of households. So the man thinks, “Well if taking from one neighbor improves my standing amongst all my other neighbors, then I may as well get the majority of neighbors on my side. That way if they ever choose to steal from someone, they may think of me and help me out with that stolen income.” What the man isn’t considering is that one day he’ll be the one being stolen from, for as the thief makes his rounds he must stop off at every house around the neighborhood to keep things even. The wealth continues to be changed and passed around, depending on who the majority decides deserves it more.

In conclusion, the free market allows an individual to decide for themselves where the best place to invest their wealth is, while the welfare state has a majority deciding for the individual. A majority that doesn’t know the details of the individuals life, and doesn’t much care as long as they can use the wealth for the greater good. But while using this “greater good” mentality, they forget this theft can have major consequences on the personal life of the individual stolen from. The groups empathy towards the individual decreases, for as they think of the neighborly collective they forget about the original neighbor that at first they felt sympathy for.

Question 1: How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and French Revolutions? Do you see the influence of Edmund Burke in his thinking?

Friedrich Gentz wrote The Origin and Principles of the American Revolution, in which he stated he felt much more empathetic towards the American revolution in comparison to the French revolution. The main differences in the two were that the Americans were fighting for conservative goals. They wanted to conserve the laws and sanctions of traditional Englishman, the only difference being they wanted to incorporate those laws into an independent American government. The French on the other hand wanted to completely transform their governmental styles and rebuild  them from the ground up. Edmund Burke, a conservative Irish philosopher, greatly influenced the way Gentz saw government. Gentz described his views through a metaphor. He described government as a young oak, and if you work with it, prune it, and help it evolve eventually it will grow into the large and mature oak it was meant to be. You can’t just cut it down and plant a new tree, but rather do your best over time to help the young tree grow into its flowering adult form.

Question 2: What points is Mary Wollstonecraft making in the excerpts you read from the beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What would she like to see changed in European society?

Mary Wollstonecraft was one of the very first to stand up for the rights of women. In her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, she wrote that women of her day were usually viewed as immoral, loudmouthed gossips. But she gave the reasoning that they were only like this because women didn’t have the rights to a proper education. She stated that not only should women have a chance to a decent education, but the schools should also institute an athletics program for women that is almost as good, if not as good, as the program they had for men. Wollstonecraft was a woman of the time though, and she expressed that most women would have to spend their lives as wives and mothers. But she strongly held the opinion that women of a higher class (whether that be mental or financial) should have the opportunities to be properly educated and gain the skills needed to support themselves. Fun fact, Wollstonecraft’s daughter grew up to become Mary Shelley, the famous author behind the story of  Frankenstein. So clearly she took her mothers revolutionary beliefs to heart.

Prompt: “Is the state the source of human rights?”

This question has to do both with politics and economy, as well as ethics and personal belief. Asking about the “source” of human rights makes it seem like they’re asking for the origin, and to most people that origin would be God. If this is true then it would mean God gifted us with the power of philosophy, and from that philosophy sprang the ideas of unalienable human rights. So the source of human rights would therefore be the people.

But if you’re looking at the question from an economical point of view than it all has to do with the political system each individual is living under. Depending on how far the state steps into ones life it can greatly influence the amount of rights someone is aloud to practice. For example socialism takes away the right of owning and developing personal property for ones own benefit. That property then falls under jurisdiction of the state, and the state attempts to make up for this with free healthcare, free college etc. So the rights are revoked and replaced with free luxuries, though I didn’t mention how expensive these “free” luxurious actually are when you take tax into consideration.

In conclusion the source of our human rights shouldn’t be the center of the question. Whether you’re religious or not most everyone can agree that human rights grew from the philosophy of intelligent individuals, whether or not that seed was planted by God is another debate all together. What should be the center of the question is how much does the state meddle with our already existing rights. The state shouldn’t be viewed as the flowing source of human rights, but rather the vacuum that sucks away those rights. This isn’t always bad, the right to murder is certainly a good right to suck away from the general public. But the state exists to govern, not to give. We the people created our unalienable human rights, or at the very least our ancestors did. Those philosophers of the past should be credited as the source of human rights, the state only works with, governs, and sucks away those rights whenever they see fit.

Prompt: “After Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false?”

This is one hundred percent accurate. But to prove how true this is we first need to define the differences between envy and jealousy. Jealousy has to do with one gaining something from another. It’s when you have a goal you wish to accomplish, and you find yourself jealous of the man who’s already completed said goal. Thus you feel the jealous urge to tear that person down in order to gain what they have. Envy on the other hand is something completely different. Envy is when an excess of jealousy mixes with an excess of hatred, and the spite that creates wishes to tear someone down simply for the joy of watching them fall. You gain nothing from them, nothing except the satisfaction of knowing you destroyed their legacy.

Now in the context of Satan (which is something I never thought i’d write), his experiences began not with envy, but with a strong jealousy towards God. Lucifer was the angel of light, Gods favorite heavenly creation; but when a sprig of jealousy pierced through him he became corrupt. He looked to God, and his holy heart blackened and filled with jealousy. He wanted to create! He wanted to rule! Why should God automatically have jurisdiction over the universe? He’s just as powerful, and in his mind he could create a much better reality! So the jealousy festered, and as it did hatred began to grow like mold around a tainted apple. And Lucifer shared this apple with the angels, just as the snake did with Eve, and the angels who chose to take a bite felt the spores of hatred and resentment take root within themselves. This army of jealousy attempted to rise up against God, and although he was sorrowful God was forced to cast out his favorite angel and all of his corrupted followers.

Now Lucifer was below heaven, and his spiteful hatred spread through him like the plague. Enough hatred in fact to mix 50/50 with his jealousy, and outta that crockpot of discomfort hopped a truly malevolent creature: envy. Envy swung Satan into a whole new ballgame, a game of sadism, depression, and betrayal to all things light. And with that the angel of light became an angel of darkness, and all mankind was warned not to be wooed by his unbridled seduction. Now Lucifer didn’t seek the power of creation, for he had found the power of destruction. And with envy by his side he swore that if he couldn’t wield Gods power than he would take as many of Gods creations down with him as he could. And thus began the universal power struggle. Light vs darkness, love vs hatred, faith vs sin. This power struggle is still in full swing today, and envy is still as deceitfully seductive as ever. That’s why we all must be very wary, for envy is constantly lurking and constantly vigilant. Ready to mix his seed of spite into any unprotected womb. If we want our planet to be a paradise we can’t succumb to the tantalizer known as envy. He’s waiting, hungrily, ready to drag us into despair the same way he dragged the angel of light. But we are strong, and although envy can grow huge with very little effort, he burns just as easily. Keep that flame of light burning bright my friends, for yourself, and for our shared earthly paradise.

Question 1: What happened (involving the Third Estate) during the meeting of the Estates General that set the French Revolution in motion?

Meetings of the Estates General were made up of three estates: the Nobles (royalty), the Clergy (church), and the Third Estate (most of the common people of France). Each estate had a number of delegates who would debate and discuss proposed ideas, then each estate had one vote on the issue. The problem was that even though the Third Estate vastly outnumbered both the Nobles and Clergy combined, they still only got one vote. This meant that the Nobles and Clergy could easily gang up against the Third Estate, and continually create laws that hurt the common people. The Third estate spoke up against this, proposing votes should be given in regard to the number of civilians under an estate. But the Nobles and Clergy, not wanting to lose the upper hand, dismissed this proposition and instead allowed the Third Estate to have six hundred delegates instead of only one hundred. But this in no way solved the issue with votes. The common people eventually stood up, and along with most of the clergy and a few choice nobles created the National Convention. The National Convention was the group that initially suggested a reformation.

Question 2: Look online for additional resources about one of the atrocities described in the lesson on the Reign of Terror and summarize what happened in 200-250 words.

Following the execution of Louie XVI (and later in that same year Marie Antoinette), Maximilien Robespierre was responsible for the mass murder and fear that spread throughout France. Robespierre was the head of the Committee of Public Safety, but ironically he questioned, accused, and executed many prominent revolutionaries for being “domestic threats”. He killed many of these former allies for seemingly insignificant errors. For example, when Georges Danton, a leading revolutionary, merely suggested these mass murders were unreasonable he was immediately murdered himself. Robespierre and others also carried out mass execution of prisoners and clergyman, usually by guillotine or drowning. The Republican Drowning was a favored method of execution, which involved tying together a naked man and woman, ridiculing them, then drowning them both in the river Nantes. Paranoia racked the French community, as it seemed Robespierre was looking for any reason to have them killed. He seemed to be developing more dictator like tendencies as his power grew, and this was very bad for any French Christians at the time. If one was found having any Christian or Catholic tendencies they were declared a threat and executed. Doing something as simple as making rosaries or prayer beads was deemed an alliance to the Catholic church and thereby a threat to the revolution.

Priests were a prime target for execution, as several laws meant to dechristianize France were released. Laws were sent out to destroy crosses, bells, statues and any other form of Christian worship. Robespierre and others instituted several revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason, and the Cult of the Supreme Being. Robespierre’s Cult of the Supreme Being was meant to be a replacement for Catholicism, and was meant to eventually become a national religion across France. Robespierre held a festival for the Cult of the Supreme Being in Paris, declaring the truth and “social utility” created by this new religion. The enactment of a law on the 21st of October 1793 made it so any nonjuring priest caught in France, and any household protecting them, would be executed on sight. Priests fled France for their lives, publicly thanking and praising England for their generosity and mercy compared to the intolerance and brutality exhibited by the French at the time.

Prompt: “Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals? Explain.”

This question can be tricky, since crimes and scenarios differ from case to case. For example it would be much harder to compensate the victim of a rape or murder than it would the victim of a theft. Financial compensation would heal the wounds of a stolen flat screen, but the emotional and psychological damage caused by a more severe crime is more difficult to atone for.

One thing most everyone can agree on is the judicial system (at least America’s system) can use more than a little rethinking. Criminals charged and sentenced to punishment will be sent to prison, or in the worst cases sentenced to lethal injection. When they are sent to prison the idea is to rehabilitate and reform the inmates moral thinking, but in most cases this doesn’t happen. Being surrounded by inmates, many of them very dangerous, often does the opposite of rehabilitation. Instead of figuring out a decent moral code they can apply to the outside world most inmates concerns have to do more with surviving prison life. Between riots, drug smuggling, prison rapes and a violent criminal hierarchy inmates have a lot more to worry about than the compensation of their victims. In fact you could argue that the victim, as well as the general public, is spending their funds in order to compensate the criminal. Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on prisons yearly, this creates an understandable outrage from the victim as well as a division between civilians and law enforcement.

In a historical sense this system still doesn’t work. Prisons were used as holding cells, temporary criminal confinement used until trial and punishment. The prisons themselves were in no way the punishment, instead torture and execution was used. This not only served as a viable method to put fear into the heads of would be criminals, but also as a grim form of entertainment for any 16th century sophisticate looking to watch a mans neck snap. But i’m getting off track. In the modern day we’ve gained a better moral compass, or at least better entertainment. For execution of prisoners is usually looked down upon, even outlawed in a number of states. This brings us back to the question of how the victim of the crime is being compensated. If the criminal wont be physically or financially mutilated, and the taxpayer/victim is forced to pay for the inmates jail time instead, than wheres the sense of justice?

In short there usually isn’t any. In some cases old age or violent riots will be the end of the inmate, and perhaps the victim will feel some sense of restitution once their wrongdoer is dead. But death doesn’t do much to better the community, the victims personal life, or the lives of the inmates friends and family. That’s why the question of victim compensation can be so slippery, it raises so many more questions who’s answers vary dramatically from case to case. So for now, until we evolve our countries systems, the only way to really create justice is to deal with criminals case by case. Even that can lead to injustices though, as eyewitnesses can make mistakes, detectives can be wrong, and half the time we end up punishing an innocent. In conclusion our judicial system needs to put some serious mental work into answering questions such as: Is death really justice? Does paying off a victim truly compensate that victims anguish? And most importantly: What can we do to create prisons that truly rehabilitate a criminal?