Western Civilization II – L165

Western Civilization II – L165

What is one issue that reflects the individualist versus collectivist outlook in your own times? How does it do this?

Collectivism in theory sounds nice and appealing. A people coming together – unifying – to build something. This is a surface level analysis. Collectivists real functions are far from this. The true nature of collectivism is force (via threats and violence). The reason for this is to seize control.

Once control is within reach, people are directed toward a certain plan/outcome/goal/result depending on who’s in control and their motives.

Most people view individualists as egotistical, selfish and inconsiderate. There are two things wrong with this thinking.

(1) There is nothing wrong with being selfish. The act of being selfish is to take care of oneself. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t hurt anyone being selfish. And as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, selfishness doesn’t make you inconsiderate nor egotistical.

(2) This view of individualist is completely untrue: being devoted to yourself makes it easier to help others. How do you expect yourself to take care of others if you can’t even take care of yourself? Take care of your own needs and then those of others.

No one person is the same as another. We may be similar, but there is no other you in the world just as well as there is no other me. There are so many of us on earth (billions). We’re all so different from one another and it makes us more difficult to control. As I mentioned above, a collectivist system wants to control those within it. Individualists make people harder to control.

Collectivist group others together to make it more difficult to individualize and create segregation between different peoples.

And this is exactly the one issue that reflects the individualist and collectivist outlook now days. Despite what many people may think, the government of the US today is a collectivist group. The US is viewed as a free country, and it relatively is compared to other countries. The reputation of the US allows the people to trust its government. People overlook certain aspects of the government because of this.

The media feeds the general public what they, and the government, want you to see. They are showing you one perspective. Here is an example: Donald Trump. Clarification: I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m just using him as an example.

All the tabloids about Trump – during his campaign in 2020, throughout the whole of his presidency, and even after – have been to make him out as a monster. They say he is rude, he is disrespectful, he is an awful person, he is the worst person alive, etc.

Has he been rude and disrespectful? Yes. Is he an awful person? Maybe. But what does him being rude or disrespectful have to do with him being president? Nothing.

Is he the worst person alive? Considering that the US didn’t end up like Russia or North Korea, I’d say there are a couple people ahead of him.

How many articles have you seen about the things Trump any of the things he did under presidency? Or rather the difference between what Trump did and the other presidents?

Trump put people in cages. Well, Obama did too. Don’t forget that. Trump started a war in Iran. Every president after WWII has declared war since: Truman, Obama, Reagan, Clinton and Trump. I hope we all know that Congress is only entity in the government that has the power to do to wage war.

If you’re going to condemn Trump, condemn them all. Hold the others accountable and don’t feign ignorance. Condemn your other beloved presidents’, you hypocrites. The hypocrites are the media by the way. I don’t want to insult the wrong people. lol.

There are people who don’t know this. I understand that. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The government and media work together to get you to see only what they want you to see. You’ll find out all the negative things they’ve done when it’s convenient for them.

You aren’t at fault for not knowing when you’ve grown up to believe a certain way your whole life. You are at fault for feigning ignorance if you see the true nature of the presidents and the welfare state.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 165

Date Written: 5 – – 23

Advertisement
Government 1B – Lecture 70

Government 1B – Lecture 70

(1) What are some of Marx’s criticisms of capitalism?

Karl Marx – founder of Marxism and author of the Communist Manifesto (published 1848). Marx is best known as the Father of Communism. He lived from 1818 to 1883 just before the chaos of world war sank its teeth into the flesh of the earth in the 1900s.

Here are 3 of Marx’s criticism of capitalism:

  1. Economic Inequality
  2. Business Cycle
  3. Stifles Talents & Abilities

Economic Inequality

According to Marx, capitalism created an economic inequality: lower, middle and upper class. He claimed that a class division had always been there throughout history: master and slaves, lords and serfs and capitalist and workers. The history of this class division would come to an end with capitalists and workers as communism – inevitable as Karl Marx saw it – would flood in. In communism, everyone would be in the same class or rather in the absence of one.

Business Cycle

The business cycle is the free market active at work. The free market is a living being. It coughs and hiccups and laughs and cries and screams just as we do.

Coughing when prices shoot up and hiccupping when the prices shoot down. Laughter when balance met supply and demand. Crying when a depression hits while screaming during a recession.

These hiccups and depressions and recessions leave resources unused.

And Marx’s believed that if all a societies resources weren’t used, it would fall to its knees. The survival of said society depended upon using all its resources to its fullest potential.

His belief was faulty. Recessions and depressions were a part of the capitalist system to Marx. Outside sources, we learned in Government 1B lecture 40, were the cause of these issues. E.G: government artificially tampering with interest rates and supply prices.

Stifles Talents & Abilities

This criticism is much like the Business Cycle. Marx believed that capitalism caused a lack of creativity. One’s full abilities weren’t fully tapped into – their fullest potential unachieved – living under capitalism.

The division of labor was what Karl Marx’s believed stifled talents and abilities.

Capitalism restricted the individual to specialization: a master of one craft. Marx didn’t like this. He thought it was both dehumanizing and a waste of talent and ability. He promised in communism it would be different. The individual would be able to, I quote Tom Woods (course Government 1B – Lesson 70), “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner just as I have in mind without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, shepard, nor critic.

The individual essentially could participate in whatever they pleased whenever he pleased under communism. They didn’t have to provide what the market needed.

(2) How might you respond to the criticisms you discussed in question 1?

All three of Karl Marx’s criticisms of capitalism were base level approaches. It seemed as if he skimmed the surface. Almost ignorant of reality. Just the way people without specializing in anything would be under Marx’s communism.

I understand the sentiment. Or at least the basic side of it. Do whatever you want. Immerse yourself into whatever you like. Do whatever you like– yada yada yada. People cannot just go from being a plumber to a doctor to a chef. Each one of those professions needs knowledgeability and experience on the profession. No bathroom would be fixed, no sickness would ever be properly diagnosed and certainly no one would eat burnt food. In the communist world, no one would be knowledgeable enough on any of these professions without specializations. Communism would most definitely fall apart from this fact alone.

Date Written: 5 – 16 – 23

Class: Government 1B – Lecture 70

Government 1B – L35

Government 1B – L35

1) What are some of the factors that have contributed to rising health-care costs in the United States?

Healthcare costs in the United States have been on a steady rise for a long long time. The costs will only continue to grow until the issue is recognized. A solution can then be formed. Issues don’t just come about. Everything has a cause. There are two major causes that have greatly impacted healthcare in the US: (1) World War II and (2) Misconception.

(1) World War II

Even as World War II commenced in September of 1939, the United States didn’t officially join until after the attack in Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941). Many, many Americans were shipped across the seas to fight an unknown war. The ordinary jobs in the US had fewer and fewer people to fill up the positions. There was a shortage of labor. Businesses were more and more desperate for help as the jobs had seemingly become vacant overnight.

Raising wages is how you’d typically fix the problem. Due to the sudden influx of men leaving for war, the government froze wages. It was no longer an option to raise wages.

How do you solve the shortage of labor?

One way was by healthcare. It just so happened that the government also stated that healthcare wasn’t a form of raising wages. Healthcare also wasn’t taxable as it wasn’t a form of raising wages. Employers in turn started offering employees healthcare coverage.

Businesses after World War II were free once again to raise wages to attract more possible employees. Employers had the option of offering their employees a raise or healthcare. Employees soon realized if they accepted the raise, they wouldn’t get the full value as no taxes were applicable to healthcare while taxes weren’t to raises.

Employees turned down raises for healthcare coverage instead.

The second cause is brought forward now. The first cause is further explained below as two major causes of healthcare costs rising in the US coincide.

(2) Misconception

Employers offering healthcare became a norm as time drifted onward. People got used to the benefits of not paying healthcare. Eventually some started viewing it as something that was free. Those who were getting coverage from their employers didn’t care about the prices of the medical supplies nor services. If they weren’t paying for it, it didn’t matter.

The healthcare business took note of this. The costs rose much, much higher than it initially was. And it is still growing as you read this essay.

Conclusion

Healthcare became increasing undervalued in a way. As so, the healthcare industry took advantage of their position and raised the prices of their products and services.

Giving people the option between what is offered (insurance or untaxed money) is a step towards correcting the immensely expensive costs of healthcare in the US. Employees would realize that choosing healthcare would only be costing them more money than it was saving them.

Fixing a problem is most easily done by awareness. You don’t have to do everything for someone else to solve their issue. All this does is makes the other party dependent on you.

Class: Government 1B – Lecture 35

Date Written: 3 – 7 – 23

Government 1B – L30

Government 1B – L30

 2) Evaluate this statement: “Government must intervene in the economy to bring about improved working conditions.”

Government intervening in Free Market issues create more problems than solutions almost 100% of the time. The evidence of the statement I just made is something we’ve seen and learned from my previous essays. Here are a couple posts about it:

Improving working conditions comes with time. A business that has just opened can’t provide the same benefits as a corporation who has 10,000 employees plus with 60 different locations. There are different ways to make up for this. Here is one of the main ways: a compensating differential. A compensating differential is essentially a trade of benefits to make an undesirable job seem equal to regular jobs.

An example would be raising wages to compensate for unpleasant conditions versus a normal payout but for better conditions. To put it more simply, would you rather work on a hot, humid summer with an AC, or without one? Most would say they want an AC. The job without the AC still needs employees. Let’s say the job with the AC pays $9 per hour. The job without AC could offer $14 to compensate for its uncomfortable conditions.

If the government intervened to make “better” working conditions, two things will happen. Not all businesses would be helped. It’s not realistic and it’s just not the way things work. Therefore, it would make it more and more difficult for businesses with unpleasant conditions to compete their counter parts. The payout would grow so great the business wouldn’t be able to (1) afford the same amount as many employees as before or (2) would go out of business altogether.

The government also would not help the businesses that are really in need, but the ones that are on stable ground. Government is not needed, nor wanted, in a place that already has a working system. There are no external forces necessary for a Free-Market ecosystem to cultivate and thrive.

1) What is the Problem that Ludwig von Mises identified that a Socialist Economic Planning Board faces?

Lug von Mises identified that the Socialist Economic Board couldn’t calculate the gains or losses properly. How is this possible?

Unlike the Free Market, the Socialist Economic Board can’t determine prices. The reason being the Socialist Board own and hold complete jurisdiction over the means of production. They control how you produce, how much you produce, what you produce, and what you get to produce.

If you own every mean of production, there isn’t anyone to compare or compete with. Prices cannot be developed with no competition. There is no process or system. Buying and selling yourself what you already own isn’t at all plausible. The means of production (from the products produced) don’t exist if there is no way to determine capital good prices.

No prices equal no economic calculation.

Free Markets have and thrive off competition. As we determined, competition creates prices. Free Markets have prices meaning you can calculate profit and loss via economic calculation.

Society signals whether something within the Free Market beneficial or not. The Free Market from there does what it needs to continue its natural flow. The Socialist economic stunts and destroys the flow.

Class: Government 1B – Lecture 30

Date Written: 3 – 2 – 23

How to do a Korean BBQ at Home

How to do a Korean BBQ at Home

Hot, savory meat right off the griddle. Whether with a crispy crunch or perfectly undercooked, it packs just as much flavor. Grilled vegetables and supporting dishes (ramen, fried rice, tteokkboki, wraps) that just soothe the soul.

Korean BBQ is all of that and so much more- it’s an experience! Invite your whole family over to try it out after learning how to do a Korean BBQ at Home with me! I’m Mia Housey and let’s dive right in!

Not Convinced? Watch this Quick Clip to Learn More before Watching How to!

So, Here’s How to!

4 Ingredient Chocolate Mousse in Less than an Hour

4 Ingredient Chocolate Mousse in Less than an Hour

Yes! Just as the title implies, this post is all about a 4-ingredient chocolate mousse that’s ready in less than an hour! And here is the best part: these aren’t the only benefits of this recipe! There is only 5g sugar per serving (1/4 cup) and those who are lactose intolerant still can get the creamy, perfect mouth feel of a mousse using dairy. You can even add things like yogurt, protein powder, cream cheese, or nut butters to up your intake of protein from the mousse.

I can feel your confusion about using dairy for those who are lactose intolerant. Let me explain. Heavy cream relatively has little to no lactose in it. There is about 0.5g of lactose per tablespoon of heavy cream. If you add just a bit of water, the lactose is pretty much then balanced or washed out. Substitute heavy cream for avocado if you aren’t willing to give this recipe a short.

So, are you ready to try this 4-ingredient chocolate mousse?

Utensils

1. Pot
2. Hand Mixer or Whisk
3. Small glass
4. Measuring cups
5. Big bowl
6. Plastic Wrap or Lid
7. Small Jars
8. Spoon

Recipe

1. 1 cup Heavy Cream
2. 1/3 cup Chocolate Chips
3. 1/4 cup Water
4. 2g Gelatin Powder

Instructions

  1. Prep your workspace by cleaning the surface you plan on using, putting away anything unnecessary, and getting out everything needed for the recipe.
  2. Add gelatin to small glass and pour hot water over. Let it sit for 5 to 10 minutes.
  3. Add chocolate chips into pot and turn to medium low heat. Continuously stir to keep from burning.
  4. After the time is up, scrap out the gelatin mixture into the pot of melted chocolate.
  5. Once the gelatin has fully melted and combined with the chocolate, turn off heat and set aside to cool.
  6. Pour heavy cream into the big bowl and use hand mixer or whisk to aerate and thicken mixture just as shown in the video.
  7. Combine slightly cooled chocolate mixture into the thickened heavy cream.
  8. Don’t worry if your mixture becomes soup-like losing its form. The mousse will stabilize after 30 to 45 minutes in the refrigerator.
  9. After letting it set in the fridge, your mousse is ready. Move into small jars if you’d like for premade servings.
Western Civilization II – L85

Western Civilization II – L85

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

If government didn’t provide “free” schooling (paid via taxes even if you don’t have kids or if you, yourself, aren’t in school), what do you think would happen to the education system? If you thought there really wouldn’t be an education system, your answer is in alignment with most people as well as those in the media, public eye, and government. There isn’t anything wrong with that. You may’ve come to this answer in the most logical you can think of, but you just barely scratched the surface.

Dig deeper.

Most will stay surface level content with the easy answer when something is still missing.

Schools have been completely privately funded before. Let me tell you a bit about it.

In the 1800s, England was the most literate society in the world. The British had no government funds to do this. It was all achieved via private funds. E.G. West deduced – author of Education and the State that came out in 1965 – that working parents and donations from the church harnessed the most funds for said private educational system. Do keep in mind that this was a time where people were quite poor in England. Families usually suffered from material deprivation or starvation if the children weren’t working.

One percent of the England’s net national income was spent a day on the schooling of children of all ages in 1833 when the education system was privately funded. It fell to 0.7 percent in 1920 when it became obligatory and free of charge (funded by taxes).

Not only did the net national income spent a day on schooling drop, but the amount of literate people did as well. About 2/3 to 3/4 of the working class were literate in the late 1830s. Almost 100% of 15-year-olds were literate the year education was obligatory (1880).

40 percent of 21-year-olds acknowledged a century later that they struggled to spell and write.

Originally, government funded schools weren’t supposed to be “free of charge”. There was an Act set in place in 1870 meant to fill in the gaps. To put it simply, it was meant to build schools where there weren’t any or wasn’t many schools. W. E. Foresters’ (the man who set the Act in motion) collegues must’ve been misinformed with something as they over reported what needed to be built. This caused an influx of overbuilt. There weren’t enough students for the schools.

In attempt to solve the issue, they lowered the fees for the schools so more students could fill the schools. Not too long after (in 1880), education was mandatory. But forcing people to do something never ends the way you want it to. People objected to it, of course. How can you force someone to do something they can’t afford?

“Free education” (paid by tax money: so, by force) was the solution. The schools were available to the rich, middle class and poor. And still are.

The evidence shown about the education system in England proves that schools- and really any other private enterprise can sustain themselves themselves. The government shouldn’t stick their finger where isn’t needed.

Read this to learn about more things the government interferes with and in:

Class: Western Civilization II – L85

Date Written: 2 – 9 – 23

Government 1B – L25

Government 1B – L25

(1) What are the arguments for and against government science funding?

The argument made by the media and in the public eye for government funding science is as follows: generally speaking, is something we all benefit from. This makes science a good thing, right? The only problem is that private enterprise is not likely to fund science.

Well, why? Two Reasons:

  1. No Profit from Basic Science
  2. No Exclusive Profits from Any Discoveries

That’s the argument made by the media and in the public eye.

Now here are real life situations that counter this so-called argument.

In the 19th century, France and Germany lagged behind the rest of the world despite pumping heavy funds into the discovery of science. Britain was quite the opposite. The most industrialized and wealthy country in the world is what Britain had become. Yet there were absolutely zero government funds being given to science. All the funds were given via private enterprise.

With the logic at the top of the essay, wouldn’t it not be possible for Britain to be as successful? Yes.

So, why is it possible?

The assumption that private enterprises wouldn’t fund any scientific discoveries. Private enterprises would actually spend quite a bit on science if it were voluntary. Removing the option of voluntary action removes the possibility of desire and need to do something. Less private enterprise happens when the government sticks their finger where it shouldn’t be – whether that be spending money they don’t have or artificially tampering with the Free Market.

The generosity to fund once shown by the government is minor. Not to mention the results aren’t any better. There would be more funds and better results if it were left up for option.

Francis Bacon came up with a system in which science was undergone (1) pursuing basic science to experiment, (2) discoveries will come back, (3) private enterprise endorse discovery and (4) said enterprise employ the scientist to persist scientific discovery. This is how we achieve evolution for the better.

Class: Government 1B – Lecture 25

Date Written: 2 – 8 – 23

Government 1B – L15

Government 1B – L15

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

What are rights?

Rights are defined as moral principles of freedom that are entitled to every human being. The right to something is justified within said reason. The Bill of Rights lists all the basic rights you have that cannot be infringed upon.

An example of basic rights is ownership over yourself and your possessions (things you’ve purchased or of something that has been given to you). I can’t just walk onto someone’s else’s property and chop a tree down or renovate it. Why can’t I do this? I don’t own the property. It is not mine to renovate.

Let me ask you a few questions using the example of ownership to answer the essay question:

  • Did the state and/or government work for said wealth? No.
  • Did the state and/or government contribute to said wealth? No.
  • Does the state and/or government help people make profit? No.
  • So, does the state and/or government possess that wealth? No.

Therefore, the state and/or government does not hold any ownership over the wealth. The state and/or government does not have the right to “redistribute” (steal) anyone’s money and give it to themselves or anyone else at all.

Why?

It’s not theirs to give, nor to take.

There is only one instance where the state and/or government can redistribute wealth from some people to others: robbery or fraud. If you have been robbed, the government must retrieve what was stolen to be able to give it back.

That’s it for this essay. Thank you for reading! Ciao!

Class: Government 1B – Lecture 15

Date Written: 1 – 26 – 23

Western Civilization II – L75

Western Civilization II – L75

(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 three main arguments that combined in Britain that paved a way for the abolition of slavery in several country’s overseas colonies. Here are the three main arguments:

  • Humanitarian
  • Economic
  • Natural Rights

The Humanitarian argument appealed to the general public via sympathy. Slaves were; taken from their families, sold by their own, shipped across the Atlantic for at least a month, put straight into labor intensive work, and get beatings if they disobey – or hung! Slaves are human beings too. No one should endure this treatment.

Yet there was one major issue with the Humanitarian argument in the pursuit of abolishing slavery: you didn’t have to abolish slavery at all to treat the slaves better.

The Economic argument was that having slaves didn’t save the slave owners money. In fact, it was more costly to own slaves. How is this statement about the Economic argument true?

Let me ask you two questions.

  1. Who do you think is more inclined to get work done: someone who is working so they can achieve the things they desire (buy property, feed their family, do what they want to do) or someone who’s been kidnapped, sold, and beaten? To do you one better, who do think would do it more efficiently?
    • Answer: the former.
  2. If you only need slaves during particular seasons, wouldn’t the slave owner be losing money because they still had to support the slaves year-round?
    • Answer: yes, the slave owners would be losing lots of money. They still have to house, feed and clothe the slaves.

The Economic argument proved that the economy would not collapse if slaves were freed but would ensure that the economy would indeed flourish.

The Natural Rights argument put the cherry on top. It was the key to the abolishment of slavery. Natural rights were first introduced in England by way of the Levellers during the English Civil War in the 1600s. The Levellers ideology was that individuals owned themselves. This ideology met a philanthropist and politician (those two don’t seem possible in the same sentence) named William Wilberforce. Wilberforce pushed for the freedom of the slaves until in 1833 slavery was abolished in England.

England was the biggest slave traders in the world, and they lead the abolishment of slavery. Here are some countries who ended slavery not too long after England:

  • French & Danish colonies 1848
  • Dutch colonies 1863
  • United States, 1863-1865
  • Cuba 1886
  • Brazil 1888

Each of the different arguments had their own appeal to certain groups: emotional and sympathetic (the Humanitarian), the analytical and businessman (the Economic) and the logical and just (Natural Rights). These three arguments aided one another and together paved a way for the abolishment of slavery in several country’s overseas colonies.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 75

Date Written: 1 – 18 – 23

Government 1B – L10

Government 1B – L10

(4) Explain the difference between positive and negative rights, using at least one example.

Everything has a positive and negative side. In this case, it’s not what you have in mind. Despite the positive and negative references in the question above, the meaning of negative and positive rights has no direct relation to good or bad.

Negative rights only require you and cannot be given to you. You are born with these rights. No one can interfere or take them away. The act of taking them from you is an act of thievery. It’s unconstitutional, immoral and in no way tolerable. Good examples are (1) right to property and (2) right to life (translation: right not to be killed).

Example number one (1) doesn’t mean you automatically get given a house. The right to property is the right to possess your own property and possessions (a house and anything you have purchased or that has been given to you). This also means that no one can come in and take your belongings.

Positive rights, in my eyes, should not be called rights but entitlement. Positive rights are a set of welfare benefits and promises made that obligate others to produce something without equal compensation. Or as my professor of Western Civilization II and Government 1B, Tom Woods, put it: positive rights place some obligations on others to bestow certain benefits on you. A right to a car and right to healthcare are examples of positive rights.

Why are negative and positive rights phrased this way?

The use of negative in negative rights is because of the utilization of not. People cannot take away your rights. As Tom Woods said, negative rights do not require anything from anybody else except not interfering with you.

As for why positive is used in positive rights, the suggestion of positive rights places an initial positive image in your head. If you got a free car, wouldn’t you view it as something great?

(2) What is Robert Nozick’s point in The Tale of the Slave? Do you think his point is valid?

Let me ask you this question: which transition from case 1 to case 9 make it no longer the tale of a slave?

  1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
  2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
  3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
  4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
  5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
  6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
  7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
  8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
  9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise, it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The answer is none. None of the cases 1-9 made it no longer the tale of a slave. Each case got progressively better. But that didn’t – and doesn’t – make it okay to do. Robert Nozick’s point in The Tale of the Slave (from his piece in 1974: Anarchy, State and Utopia) was to imply that despite what most people in the late 1900s thought, they were all still enslaved.

I do think Nozick’s point is valid and remains being so now as I’m writing this essay (in January 17, 2023). Almost 50 years later and no change has come about. Most people wouldn’t agree with me though. In the US, most people have been taught their whole lives not to think for themselves.

Here is one example to prove Nozick’s and my point: people were never able – or meant – to actually own land. If we were actually able, we wouldn’t have to pay property taxes.

Unbelievable.

Think about it.

Class: Government 1B – Lecture 10

Date Written: 1 – 17 – 22

Western Civilization II – L70

Western Civilization II – L70

(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 was an Austrian Diplomat who was a born in Poland 1764 and passed in Austria1832. He was Polish, Austrian and German. In the 1800s, he wrote and released The Origin & Principles of the American Revolution Compared with The Origin & Principles of the French Revolution. Here is where my answer to the question begins.

How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and French Revolutions?

Friedrich Gentz distinguishes the two in this simplified sentence: the American Revolution had a definite objective whilst the French Revolution had none. The American’s were fighting the against the British for their traditional, constitutional rights. The rights being all the rights of a British man: (1) the colonies dealt with their own internal matters (left to governing themselves), (2) the colonies internal institutions and representatives were the only ones that could tax or govern its people, and (3) the people elected its representatives and gave consent to said taxing and governing.

The British had attempted to instill new, unconstitutional ways of running the New World. The Colonists countered the British’s efforts by fighting for their traditional rights.

The French Revolution, as I mentioned above, didn’t have a definite objective. It was quite the opposite of the American Revolution. The Americans fought to its traditions while the French sought to get rid of all its past ways. The French abolished every piece of their past they could: monarchy, religion, landmarks, their calendars, etc. France was completely de-Christianized. The people of the Church had to flee the country to escape execution. The intention – or rather more the outcome – would be a reconstruction of French society.

A restart.

Though it may sound good initially, imposing a whole new way of living life on a society would lead to some people opposing some or all of its ways. The only way to successfully implement this new way of living would be to execute all those who resist. And that’s what happened.

About half a million people were imprisoned in France for opposing the new way. Many died in prison, awaiting trial or were executed. This era of the French Revolution was named the Reign of Terror.

The French Revolution striped down tradition while the American Revolution embraced it.

Now to answer the second question: do I see the influence of Edmund Burke in Friedrich Gentz thinking?

Yes, I did see the influence of the Irish political theorist (Burke) on Gentz thinking. Friedrich Gentz was fond of Edmund Burke as he had translated one of Burke’s pieces. Edmund Burke was born in Dublin, Ireland and wrote the Reflection on the Revolution in France.

Here are the key themes of the book and of a well-built society.

  • importance of tradition
  • importance of humility; 1000s of years of human experience vs your one brain
  • society too delicate and complex to be built or rebuilt by reason alone
  • change must be gradual, sober, and in continuity with the past

Gentz agreed with these key themes. He used the themes to prove the Reign of Terror and the downfall of the French Revolution. It also proved everything within the American Revolution had a definite objective.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 70

Date Written: 1 – 5 – 23

Making Breakfast Tostones in 20 Minutes

Making Breakfast Tostones in 20 Minutes

Breakfast is perhaps the most important meal of the day. It determines how we’ll feel, act, and do the rest of the day. That’s a lot of power one meal can do for you. If you’re looking to spice some breakfast things up, this is the recipe you need. All you need is 5 basic ingredients to make this crunchy, savory breakfast item a favorite on breakfast item. Let’s see how!

Basic Ingredients You’ll Need

 - Tostones (plantains)
 - Ground Beef 
 - Eggs
 - Cheese of Choice
 - Oil of Choice 

Extra Ingredients (to inspire)

 - Potatoes
 - Sour Cream
 - Avocado
 - Beans
 - Jalapeños
 - Lettuce
 - Tomatoes 
 - Onions  

Instructions

Government 1A – L85

Government 1A – L85

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

For those who don’t know, and want to ask, what are state subsidies? I mentioned state subsidies in my Lecture 30 Essay from the Government 1A course of the Ron Paul Curriculum (RPC). Here is the exact way I defined it: a state subsidy is a set of funds pumped into an economic system to rehabilitate it into its normal state via the government or public and private entities.

Example of How State Subsidy is Actually Used: The government giving millions of dollars to a failing corporation like American Airlines (just using American Airlines as an example (though I do believe the state subsidized a handful of airlines in 2020)).

As I queried in my Lecture 30 Essay, where does the government get that money?

Governments have absolutely zero ways of producing said funds. Well, that statement is not entirely true. The only logical way – yet extremely unethical – is via taxes. Now that I’ve disclosed this information, is there a difference between state subsidized churches and state subsidized schools?

Subsidizing Schools

Not everyone in the world has children. To make people without children pay for public schools is unethical and immoral (in the US the government makes you do this).

This also allows for the government to influence and control what you or your children are learning. If the government wanted to brainwash you, they have everything they need at their disposal (power and ability).

Subsidizing Churches

As I pointed out in the subsiding school’s portion of this essay: not everyone is the same. Some people have children, some don’t. This is the same for religion. Some people are Christian, other are Islam, and some don’t believe in anything.

If you also allow the government to “take care” of education, they will educate you how they please. The government is fully capable of pointing you to look the other way unknowingly.

Both remove neutrality from themselves.

Short Answer

Yes, there is a difference, but it doesn’t mean that either subsiding schools or churches is good. In fact, no form of state-subsidy is good for the Free Market. For three reasons: it gives more power to the state (government), makes people more dependent on the state (control), creates a ton more debt and disrupts the flow of the Free Market (inflation and/or scarcity occurs).

Class: Government 1A – Lecture 85

Date Written: 12 – 14 – 22

Government 1A – L65

Government 1A – L65

Is the state the source of human rights?

The state and any form of government (and/or business) does not have the authority to give, nor take the rights of anyone. An outside source like the state did not create human rights and just announce to the public if we had them or not.

Everyone has rights. You’re born with them, and they are yours forever and beyond. Your rights are your possession, and you hold ownership over them. It’s illegal – not to mention immoral – for anyone to take them away. Human rights cannot be given to someone because you already have them. The only source of human rights is yourself. You have the right to your own and I have the right to mine.

Class: Government 1A – Lecture 65

Date Written: 12 – 5 – 22

The Easiest Bread Recipe

The Easiest Bread Recipe

In a less than 3 hours, with just 7 ingredients, you can have hot, fresh bread on your table. Bubble bread, bread knots, bread rolls and small rolls – this recipe is ready for your creativity! Best part yet: this recipe only uses 30 grams or less of sugar. Try this soft, fluffy milk bread that just keeps bouncing back.



Recipe

- 1 cup milk
- 2 tsps. yeast
- 3 cups flour
- 3 tbsps. salt
- 2 tbsps. sugar
- 1 egg
- 1/3 butter

Directions

  1. Mix 2 tsps. yeast and a tbsp. sugar into 1 cup milk. Let it sit for 5 to 10.
  2. While you wait, add 3 cups flour, 3 tbsps. salt and 1 tbsp. sugar. Whisk for 1-3 minutes.
  3. Crack an egg and pour melt on top of dry ingredients. Follow up by pouring the milk and yeast mixture.
  4. Mix in a standard mixer until everything is close to dough form. Now you can start kneading the dough by hand or with the standard mixer.
  5. Once its smooth, and has risen quite a bit, cover the dough with a cloth or plastic wrap and let sit out for about an hour.
  6. Preheat oven to 400 degrees Fahrenheit as you shape dough as you like. You can make any of the following: bubble bread, rolls, small loafs and bread knots.
  7. Let rise for another 30-60 minutes then paint a light glaze over the top: you can you use yolks, butter and oil (I suggest egg yolks as they make your bread shiny).
  8. Check every five to ten minutes for 30 minutes and sometime with that time your bread will be ready.
  9. Immediately take the bread out of the pan and let cool for 10 minutes to allow for additional cooking period outside of the oven. And then you’re done!

This bread truly goes with just about everything: steak, soups, butter, jams, jellies and more. Try more recipes by exploring more recipes on In the Midst of Being on the Grub page. With that, Ciao!

Government 1A – L50

Government 1A – L50

Should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting?

The answer can vary depending upon if the meeting is public or private.

If the meeting is public, the politician has no right to make a verbal restriction and the police don’t have the right to enforce it. The only circumstance the police should be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of the politician is if it is hurting someone and anyone in any way.

All politician’s do not have the authority to enforce anything on anyone against their will. This remains true in public or in private.

In a private meeting, recording anyone without the persons consent is against the law. The politician has the authority in this situation to request the police to stop a video and/or recording of such meeting. Not because a politician told the police to do it, but for the reason that it is, again, against the law. This applies vice versa as well.

Class: Government 1A – Lecture 50

Date Written: 11 – 9 – 22

Government 1A – L5 & L10

Government 1A – L5 & L10

**Note: essays L5 and L10 have been combined to create a more intricate, detailed and nonrepetitive set of essays. Each essay question will use one another to create a more clear and optimal answer.

Question: Is Family a Legitimate Form of Government? Defend your Position.

What is government? Most people view government as a small group of people in charge of a country. They are supposed to defend its citizens from outside or inside threats and develop laws, bills and what not.

Government is more than this. Well, supposed to be more than this.

Here are the Basic Ideas of Government given by Dr. Gary North (in Lectures 1-5 of the Government 1A course) which will help me give my answer to the question above:

1. There are more types of government than civil government.
2. There are five aspects of all forms of government: sovereignty, authority, law, sanctions, continuity.
3. The key idea of government is legitimacy. This is connected to sovereignty. Source?
4. Government may have come into existence through violence (“the bully”).
5. Men need legitimate institutions to appeal to in order to resist the State.
6. The source of law is the god of a society.

So, what are the marks of government? What makes a government a government?

  1. The Obedience of its members.
  2. The Exclusion of other governments.

A family is a form of government that should have set legal immunities
as a family needs to be able to protect, discipline, educate and guide those
within it.

The civil government did not create any family. Therefore, the government do not have the authority, nor the right to choose:

  1. A child’s values
  2. How to educate children
  3. How to discipline
  4. How to enforce said discipline & rules
  5. Who is in a family
  6. How many children you can have
  7. Who inherits what
  8. If the government gets a cut of the inheritance

The only beings with the ability to decide any of the things I listed above are the parents and/or guardians of children. Meaning families are entitled to immunities, right to exclude and educate a child.

And here is the reason why: both family and government have different motives. A family’s motivation is children while the government is the state. This is why I believe family is a form of government.

Class: Government 1A – Lecture 5

Date Written: 9 – 3 – 22 (edited 7th of sept.)


WRITE A 500-WORD ESSAY ON THIS TOPIC and OFFER AN OPINION ON WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE FAMILY’S SOVEREIGNTY IS.

Describe family government in terms of the five institutional characteristics: sovereignty, hierarchy (authority), law, sanctions, and succession.

5 Levels of Government5 Questions of Government
(1) Sovereignty“who’s in charge?”
(2) Hierarchy (authority)“to whom do I report?”
(3) Law “what are the rules?”
(4) Sanctions“What do I get if I obey/disobey?”
(5) Succession“does this outfit have a future?”

Levels (1) Sovereignty and (2) Hierarchy belongs to the parents and/or guardians of children. In this position, the parents have ability to lay out the (3) Law (in other words, rules). Sanctions are set by parents who decide what is and isn’t acceptable. Whether the children choose to follow determine said sanctions. The (5) is Succession is the final level of government in which decided inheritance, religion, and education.

Class: Government 1A – Lecture 5 & 10

Date Written: 9 – 7 – 22

Biology – L140

Biology – L140

4. How does your body “know” when you are hungry/not hungry?

An area in your brain called the Satiety Center is what determines if your hunger is satiated or not. Many hormones influence hunger in humans. Here are the four main ones:

  1. Ghrelin
  2. Insulin
  3. Leptin
  4. PYY

Ghrelin

Ghrelin is released when your stomach is empty. The hormone is halted when you eat, and your stomach starts stretching. The brain is better at intaking info after high amounts of ghrelin are released.

Leptin

Leptin is also a suppressive appetite hormone. The amount of fat in your body is equal to the amount of leptin in your body. Thats why when you diet you get hungrier.

Insulin

Known for controlling blood sugar and being released from the pancreas, insulin has many more uses than we think. One of those uses being suppressing appetite. This can prevent overeating from occurring.

PYY

PYY is a peptide (Peptide YY). At the end of a meal, when you are full, PYY is produced. The PYY, like insulin and leptin, shuts out the ghrelin (hunger).

Class: Biology – Lecture 140

Date Written: 3 – 30 – 22

Biology – L100

Biology – L100

How does water move through the body of a plant? Plot the route, in general terms, from roots to leaves. Include all the major tissues, organs, and structures involved, and their role in the movement of water.

Here is the process (and quick answer):

  1. Roots
  2. Apoplast or Symplast
  3. Xylem
  4. Transpiration

Read below for the definition of each and the process in which water moves through the body of a plant.

(1) Roots

Roots are tender vein like branches that devil beneath the soil to retrieve nutrients and water to achieve a hospitable life. Not only that, but to help the plants stay stable. Most all plants have roots. Like trees, bushes, or algae.

(2a) Apoplast

Dead.

Dead cells are what apoplast is made up of and lie outside of the plasma membrane. Apoplast is a slightly faster way of delivering nutrients and water from roots to the xylem. This allows for more water to be delivered through the apoplast system.

(3) Xyelm

Pronounced zuh-eye-lem, the xylem is the largest portion of the plant as well as moving through the body of a plant. It pushes water and nutrients up from the symplast or apoplast and transports it to the process called transpiration. The xylem also is what gives the body of the plants structure and strength.

Example: tree trunk, stem of a flower, etc.

(2B) Symplast

Alive.

While the apoplast are dead, the symplast are made of living cells inside the plasma membrane (all cytosol). Though apoplast is slightly faster than symplast, symplast has a metabolic system (what slows it down) whereas the apoplast do not.

(4) Transpiration

As mentioned on the left (3), transpiration (4) connects to the xylem. It’s the last phase of the moving water through a plants body. Transpiration occurs so that water and nutrients from the xylem move to an area of the leaves that open and close. This area is called the stomata. When open, water evaporates or is released. If the plant is closed, the plant can begin to hydrate itself.

Class: Biology – Lecture 100

Date Written: 2 – 21 – 22

Biology – L10

Biology – L10

Compare and Contrast Proteins and Carbohydrates.

Proteins and carbohydrates are both used for energy- whether by storing, or replenishing the body with it.

Yet each are unique and have different purposes other than energy.

But before I touch on comparing and contrasting proteins and carbohydrates, how are each formed? And what are their purposes/functions?

Let’s find out!


How Proteins are Formed and Function

By guide of a peptide bonds strung together into a long chain with the aid of amino acids, a protein is formed. And to put it simply, a proteins function is everything. Literally everything: for energy purposes (which I mentioned in the first sentence of the post), to help build muscle, to make hormones, to team-up with other molecules to protect the organism, and more alike.

How Carbohydrates are Formed and Function

Carbohydrates are formed by three elements: hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Here’s the formula: CH2O. Like proteins, carbohydrates are an essential as well as a energy sources. Their function is to fuel the nervous system, kidney’d, and brain and also can be used as a substitute for protein.

Compare and Contrast

Proteins and carbohydrates, as I mentioned a handful times, are an energy sources. And though each are, proteins’ energy given last longer than those of carbohydrates. The energy from carbohydrates only last for short periods as it is a energy substitute for protein. This makes it so proteins can do other things and the organism can still have energy.

While protein is used for everything in a human organism, carbohydrates are focused on certain areas (nervous system, kidney’s, and brain).


This was my first biology essay. Thank you for taking time out your day to read this!

Class: Biology – Lesson 10

Date Written: 9-10-21

The 3 Main Components of a Business

The 3 Main Components of a Business

Can you guess what I’m marketing here?

1 – Sales & Marketing

Sales and marketing are huge part of starting a business. The purpose of it is to find people who benefit from your product, or service, and reel customers in. If you don’t market your business, or don’t know how, who will ever find out about you?

You won’t have any customers.

Now, of course, you could have a store at a large shopping center and that starts you off. But just being in such a location is advertising to those who walk, or drive by.

Marketing and sales are a necessity. It doesn’t even have to be something large scale. Your marketing can be as simple as chatting with your friends and family about it.

Ways to Advertise Your Business

Some of the following ways to advertise your business are free, cost a tad bit of money in the long run, or cost a ton. Pick your poison!

  • Your City Chamber
  • Discuss it at work (if you have a separate job while launching business)
  • Work at your Local Farmer’s Market
  • Bring samples of your product to events for people to try
  • If you sign up for a certain service, Tom Woods will give your business a shout out on his show The Tom Woods Show. (I don’t know the details of the service, but it’ll be shown somewhere on his website)
  • Flyers
  • Online medias (Instagram, WordPress, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube)
  • Chat with friends and family
  • Ask your friends and family to advertise to their friends and family

If you want to know more ways, let me know it the comments.

2 – Operations

Running a Tight Ship: The Impact of Operational Efficiency on Profits –  Channel Futures
Image of channelfutures.com

The operations of a business is the step that is meant to attain the customers desire in your product and service. If your product, or service doesn’t live up to what you’ve marketed, customers will be disappointed. At that point, what is stopping them from shopping with another business?

In operations, your business’ purpose is to show the customers why they shouldn’t shop anywhere else.

3 – Finance & Administration

Finance and Administration - PCG | Public Consulting Group
Image of publicconsultinggroup.com

And finally, finance and administration. This last component is where the accounting comes in. You record your expenses, your gains, and reinvestments. The things in which you might pay for are employees, taxes, supplies, reinvesting in your business, and the good your offering. While the money you’re making is definitely an accomplishment and gain.

Whether you are purchasing the items to create your product, or the tools in how you provide your service, they each are under this third component.

The legal side is also apart of finance and administration. Like things such as permits, lawsuits, licenses, insurance and so on.


Did this post help shine a light of clarity on your thoughts? Or just found it interesting? Do let me know in the comments!

‘Til next time, Ciao!

Class: Business II – Lesson 5

Date Written: 9-1-21

Western Civilization II – L100

Western Civilization II – L100


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

Who is Karl Marx?

Being the most well-known German advocate of both communism and socialism, Karl Marx was a firm believer in the fall of capitalist societies. He wrote the book Das Kapital and aided in writing the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx stuck his finger into a bit of everything. He was a political theorist, economist, philosopher, sociologist, journalist and historian.

The last sentence will give you some insight on one of the two weak points in his view I’ll be discussing in this essay.

Here are just two weak points in the views of Karl Marx:

  1. Specialization
  2. Exchange & the Labor Theory of Value

These two weak points in his views feed into each other. As I slightly mentioned above, Karl Marx’s believed capitalism was constricting. Constricting to the arts, work, production and employees. Marx believed an influx of skills and talent would satiate society if the division of labor as well as private property was terminated.

Why the division of labor?

Karl Marx saw it this way: people that were well versed in everything was what built the foundation of a communist society. The division of labor forced people to specialize in one thing. Not even forced, Marx believed it encouraged people to think they wanted to specialize in something. This was what the capitalist outlook did.

In other words, terminating the division of labor equaled terminating capitalist.

The idea of free will was what Karl Marx’s thinking lacked. Everyone has the decision on whether or not they want to pursue something- whether it be focusing on one or five things. Hobbies and other activities are not excluded from the capitalist outlook nor in a society. People already participate in various different things that help society grow and thrive. Some people choose to work one job while another might work three. The option- the choice is never taken off the table. The number of occupations you have doesn’t stop you from producing other things for society. It doesn’t make you useless to focus on one thing.

In my opinion, Karl Marx’s beliefs and way of life had made him very surface level. His desire to be well versed in everything had perhaps left him with the very basic knowledge of everything. His comprehension can never go deeper without specializing in something.

Do note that if you read any of his writings, you’ll notice that a lot of Karl Marx’s writing is seemingly backwards and contradictory.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 100

Date Written: 3 – 9 – 23

Western Civilization II – L105

Western Civilization II – L105

(1) What were the key steps in the process of Italian unification?

Similar to its modern-day glory, Italy was unified around the mid 1800s. Yet only four decades earlier was Italy still divided by its independent states. Some examples: the Papal States, Tuscany, Naples (where Sicily resides) and Piedmont. For reference: the Papal States were in the middle of the peninsula country, Tuscany was tucked into its westside, Naples was the entire southern region (where Sicily resides) and Piedmont was the farthest northwestern piece of Italy today.

The most important state a part of the unification of Italy was by Piedmont. Count Camillo di Cavour in the 1850s becoming Prime Minister of Piedmont was the reason of the state’s significance.

Camillo di Cavour’s strategy to lend 15,000 troupes to aid the French in the Crimean War was a success. It majorly impacted the Italian unification come into being. If he hadn’t made this “donation” (decision), Austria would’ve come back and – as they always did – exercised their own governance on the Italian states.

More possibilities flourished by gaining the favor of the French. Napolean the 3rd took advantage of this opportunity. He knew if he restricted Austria from Lombardy and Venicia, it would weaken them to an extent. And it did. Austria was not happy about this. Piedmont had successfully allied with the French and stopped Austria from trading with both Lombardy and Venicia. Austria – triggered by each blow – waged war on Piedmont.

Lombardy was taken by Piedmont soon later. Piedmont wanted more though. Possession of Lombardy just wasn’t enough.

Said to be the finest general in Italy, another big player in the unification of Italy came into play: Giuseppe Garibaldi. He gets word that Piedmont is recruiting. He goes to the southern region of Italy and conquers the regimen there. He offers it up to Piedmont.

Piedmont had effectively taken control of the entire country. Throughout the 1860s, Italy gets closer and closer and closer its condition today. Venicia becomes a part of Italy in 1866. All the papal territories, except for the Vatican, also are in Italian hands by 1871.

(3) Discuss the significance of two of the major innovations of the Second Industrial Revolution.

The first Industrial Revolution took the world by storm from the latter half of the 18th century to the early 19th. It took off in England and spread to neighboring countries from there. A couple of decades after the close of the first, a second industrial revolution tumbling in from the late 18th century to early 20th.

What is the difference between the first and second?

The first Industrial Revolution was a transformation of work and the workplace (manufacturing) while the second was transition of technology and communication. Some big inventions of the first industrial revolution were the cotton gin, steam engine and the telegraph.

I’ll be talking about two of the Second Industrial Revolutions major innovations. There are two people responsible for the two major innovations are Henry Bessemer and Thomas Edison.

Though it wasn’t his intention, Henry Bessemer developed and refined a method to make lower the prices of steel. The method worked by taken molten melt and blowing air into it to speed up the process. In the 1890s, the drop in the cost of steel was immense. Steel was more affordable therefore allowing more businesses to thrive and others to start. Bessemer innovation aided the soon to come airplanes, radios, evolved automobiles and so much more.

You are definitely more familiar with Thomas Edison innovation: the light bulb. His creation literally lit up the darkness in the world in the 1870s. England was the first country to build a central power station in 1881. These stations made it possible to generate large amounts of electricity safely to be able to transport it far and wide. Urban life itself is revolutionized and reformed almost completely. The same can be said about night life in the late 19th century as there was none to begin with.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 105

Date Written: 3 – 29 – 23

Western Civilization II – L155

Western Civilization II – L155

What were the important components of Germany’s Economic Miracle?

The important components to Wirtschaftswunder (Germany’s Economic Miracle) were due to four men in the post-world-war II era. One American and three Germans:

  1. Lucius D Clay (American)
  2. Konrad Adenauer (German)
  3. Ludwig Erhard (German)
  4. Wilhelm Ropke (German)

Lucius D. Clay (a military governor) had a few reserves about Germany and its state after World War II. Germany at the time was not in a good place. The Allies set economic restrictions upon the country: no importing, no work, no currency etc. People were starved, dehydrated and without work. The loss of many, many loved ones weighing on them didn’t help. Homes were bombed in the war, but factories were demolished after by the Allies.

Zero production was allowed. Only production of produce: farmers were the only thing the Allies wanted the Germans to be.

A communist revolt – Governor Clay believed – would break out because of all the deprivation within the country (food, water and other basic necessities). He introduced the two German advisors (he introduced of the men two I mentioned above) to counter what he thought was coming. These two men helped Governor Clay reform Germany.

Konrad Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard. Konrad Adenauer was the first president not only after World War II, but the first ever. Individual rights, constitutionalism and federalism is what Adenauer wanted in this new country. Ludwig Erhard was brought in to aid him because of it.

Ludwig Erhard vision aligned with an economist who believed in the teachings of Ludwig von Mises: Wilhelm Ropke (the last of the four men I mentioned above). Ropke’s philosophy identified that free economic trade via a free market was what would bring Germany out of ruin.

Erhard made it come to fruition as Minister of Economic Affairs. He managed to get the British and Americans to lift the production restrictions on Germany by convincing them it would allow them to terminate the remaining Nazis. The Allies reformed the Germans currency (a new deutschmark) June 20, 1948. Not days after it launched, the bustle began. German citizens traded anything of value for money and were now able to buy goods that store owners were holding onto.

These four men implementing the free market into Germany was the reason the country was able to rebuild. The free market was what made the miracle within the German economy.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 55

Date Written: 5 – 24 – 23

Western Civilization II – L145

Western Civilization II – L145

 In what ways did revenge figure into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II?

Revenge was the way each country broke through the second World Wars’ barriers to entry. If you weren’t allied with anyone involved in the war, being attacked and chasing down revenge was the only way in.

This applied for the US when Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese as for the Soviets when Hitler attacked the Union despite their nonaggression pact.

Here is the reason I state above barrier to entry: the US was pretty much already involved in the second World War before they were formally invited (bombing in Pearl Harbor). The US was placing battles ships in Hawaii and shipping supplies across the Pacific.

As for Stalin, Hitler’s betrayal of the nonaggression pact pushed the Soviets out of the war. Stalin – motivated by revenge – allied with Americans and English. The world would be a very different place today if Hitler hadn’t hated Russians and Slavs. He believed them to be lesser creatures. Hilter convinced the Germans of this too and vice versa for Stalin and Soviets.

Revenge fueled all parties of the war.

It wasn’t as much a revenge between countries and its people rather governments between governments. Both sides of the war were fed propaganda to despise the other. Some examples could be (1) the enemies citizens all want to come and bomb their homes or (2) that the enemy will kill you in your sleep.

And we all know fear is killer. You make bad choices when they are afraid.

The result of World War II was devastation to innocence via starvation, death, wounds, dehydration and mental illness. Neither side of World War II was willingly to take responsibility for their actions and blamed the other faction.

Class: Western Civilization II – L145

Date Written: 5 – 23 – 23

Western Civilization II – L120

Western Civilization II – L120

(1) How did a political assassination in June 1914 lead to a world war? Why did each of the major countries intervene?

World War I didn’t weigh on the minds of the Serbs when one of their own assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his family (wife and son) on June 28th, 1914. Neither did it on the minds of Austria-Hungary nor of the other European countries.

You’d figure as the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne it’d be quite the opposite. Most today believe his assassination ignited his peoples rage and World War I was waged from there. The truth is quite cruel: no one really liked the Archduke Francis Ferdinand. His passing viewed as a blessing. Perhaps today regarded as a curse.

The Archduke’s passing was used as an excuse to wage war on Serbia. An attempt to put the Serbs in their place and kill all influence they held. The whole world – Austria-Hungary believed – would side with them. They’d been “robbed” of their heir. Serbia would pay for it.

And Austria-Hungary would take advantage of the picture it painted.

Austria-Hungary allied with the Germans and the Serbia with Russians. The Russians offered their support 100% in attempt to salvage both their pride and waning power in the Balkans. As for the Germans, they offered the “blank check” at Austria-Hungary’s request.

A hand outstretched saying: do what you must. The Germans offered this in hopes that they could extend their perimeters and break free of their supposed encirclement.

A list of demands was prepared for Serbia. An ultimatum of sorts. If they didn’t accept the terms, Austria-Hungary would wage war on them. The Serbs obliged mostly, reluctantly but voluntarily. The reason for war was gone within an instant. There was no longer a purpose for the war to Germany. It was different for their allies. Austria-Hungary believed there were still grounds for war if not all of the terms were accepted by Serbia.

Austria-Hungary’s invasion of Serbia caused a domino effect across the entirety of Europe. The Russians barreling behind the Serbs and the Germans answered to the Russians entrance to the war.

The French – allied with the Russians – entered the war not long after in an attempt to reclaim a territory stolen in the Franco-Prussian War by the Germans: Alsace–Lorraine.

A gateway into the war opened for the British: the Germans invasion Belgium (a neutral standing country since the 1839). It was the perfect excuse for the British enter and stomp on the Germans growing power.

Date Written: 4 – 25 – 23

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 120

Western Civilization II – L90

Western Civilization II – L90

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

Biologist, psychologist, sociologist and philosopher who lived from the early 1800s to the early 1900s, Herbert Spencer arguments were all based around his idea of the law of equal freedom.

As long as you don’t infringe upon someone else’s equal right to enjoy their property and rights, everyone has the right and freedom to do what they’d like. People should not be aggressed against as well as not commit aggression towards others. It should sound familiar as it’s the libertarianism nonaggression principal.

Where does Spencer talk about this?

His book Social Statics published in 1851 in his chapter about the right to ignore the state. The principal I shared above supports his belief that everyone has the right to ignore the state. In doing this, you wouldn’t have to pay the government taxes nor give in to its other coercions. The state can’t force you to do these things. This also means that you can’t go to the state when you have a problem if you’ve ignored them.

You should be left alone if you do not interfere with someone’s rights and/or property. You can go about your business, and they can go about theirs.

Class: Western Civilization II – Lecture 90

Date Written: 3 – 1 – 23