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?

Government funded compulsory education was first started in Rome when the thoughts and works of Plato were to be taught to the youth as a school of somewhat. The growth however, of State Education in Europe, can be found in 1524, during the Protestant Reformation when Martin Luther wrote a letter to German officials stating that the devil is hard at work to get rid of the christian schools. He then goes on to talk about how military men go to war armed with spears and rifles, all being funded by the government, then an education of the youth should be funded as well.

John Calvin, being more well known throughout Europe, had a larger reach than Martin Luther to bring compulsory education to Europe. John Calvin had the same ideas as Martin Luther and since John Clavin had a larger reach of followers, his followers were doing the same in different countries.

Prussia in 1717. Frederick William the first established the first national compulsory school system in Europe.

Napoleon Emperor of France had followed the idea of Frederick William the first, and later his sons to established a state compulsory education.

Napoleon’s thoughts of a state education were not what the optimistic would presume of merely giving the public an education to think and become self sufficient. Rather Napoleon saw this as an opportunity to teach the people that he, being the Emperor, was a higher being and that the will of the Emperor was the same will of God and should always be accomplished. He also saw this as an opportunity to remove the thought of a revolution among the public.

Prussia was doing the same, to establish compulsory state education to force feed the public country ideology. This sounds absurd, that a government would want to isolate the public and only teach them what they want them to learn. However look to WWI, WWII, look to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Michinomiya Hirohito of Japan, even today Kim Jung Un of North Korea. You can see that governments don’t have the greater gain of the public in mind.

By the 1900’s every country in Europe (except Belgium) had some form of compulsory state education. Later in the 1920’s Belgium had a state public education system.

Which Promotes Greater Personal Responsibility, the Free Market or the Welfare State?

Capitalism is the entire basis of free market and sovereign consumerism. To say that the Welfare State gives the public a greater responsibility economically makes no sense. The entire function of the Welfare State is to take away the rights given to the people in a capitalist society to insure the personal “welfare” of the public.

The Welfare State has no use in a capitalist country or government since the idea of Capitalism is based on success to businesses by the consumers.

In Edmund Burke’s the Freedom of Philosophy you can find him explain how Capitalism is best for large economy’s.

The Founding Fathers had built a capitalist government to last for a long time. From 1776 until 2020. The American Government was built for the free economic idea of capitalism and the Free Market.

In final the Free Market goes along with capitalism and since capitalism is built on the free economic idea the Free market is perfect for personal economic responsibility.

Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals?

During these days when Chicago, LA, and New York are on a crime surge, you often wonder if it there is a problem with our justice system. You hear often times that people deserve a second chance, or you hear that jails should be removed altogether. Many of these arguments can be backed up but here I have my thoughts on this issue.

Most of the crimes in small city’s are often petty crimes such as theft and small cases of assault. These crimes don’t deserve a 20-30 year criminal incarceration sentence. But should they be justified by a restitution to the victim? Who’s to say they won’t commit the crime again? Although it may be better to not incarserate a man who’s worked hard for his economic status but had committed a petty crime and is now incarcerated for 4 years, you still have cases of heavy murder. People who have no remorse for taking the life of women and children, people who re willing to ruin the life of a young adult by committing rape, people who run child trafficking agencies that allow people to purchase children like vegetables from a store.

So would it be better for society if restitution was given to the victim rather than a jail sentence. For petty crimes, and it being the first offense given to this person, I do believe to give this person a second chance since we find even in our own government that people make mistakes. If the victim is willing to drop the charges since a small payment was given, there should be no need for a jail sentence. However if this offense is committed over and over, there should be justice given. This person is not willing to be a law abiding citizen to his state, and country.

In conclusion. A jail sentence should still be a factor given to extreme criminals but I believe that if it isn’t used as aggressively both the victim and criminal can still benefit to society.

The Constitutional disputes leading to the American Revolution

When people think of the American Revolution, they think of a small group of the population desiring freedom, often though, people don’t understand what freedom they were fighting for. First, let’s look at what was happening before the revolution.

The British Empire was thriving and there was hardly any opposing forces to stop them from enforcing their will. The British Empire was enforcing sales tax upon the people, often at 70% or 80%. This was an extreme amount for the people to allow, so often times the people would smuggle in Molasses and Sugar from the west Indies. The British Parliament had enforced a new act in 1764 known as the Sugar Act which increased the tax on U.S. exports and imports which would continue to crush the economic state.

In the year 1765 the British Parliament had enforced a new act known as the Stamp Act. The stamp act would require all paper and printed documents to be purchased from London. This not only was an inconvenience to the people, it was also purchased at a large price.

In 1766 due to the large outrage from the public and the British Empire losing grips upon this developing nation, the Stamp Act was revoked and taxes had began to lower, but an amount of the public would still not pay the sales tax since they still believed that they were still British Citizens and they had no need to pay a tax that was not given to citizens from Britain.

In 1773 there was a protest by the Sons of Liberty to throw the tea into the harbor. The East Indie Company from the British Empire was selling tea to the public without a tax rate imposed which had enraged the public.

in 1775 armed militias were stationed in Lexington Kentucky facing the British empire when the first shots were fired.

After the war and chaos, on July 4th, 1776, 56 delegates representing the 13 colonies had signed the U.S Declaration of Independence illegally and officially declared independence from the British Empire.

The Views of the French Materialists

During the 18th Century “Enlightenment”, a group of French Philosophers that came to a decision that Man was constantly looking for pleasurable feelings and avoiding painful ones. They say that these constant searches for enjoyable feelings can be just and man is man. They agree that life is short lived and so Man should try to pursue as much enjoyment as possible.

The Enlightenment was already a change of views and beliefs and the discussion of God was often opposed, however during the Enlightenment the main discussion of God and Christianity was no longer agreed with. The practice of religion and freedom was beginning to be taken away from the people and the war of 1812 was on the verge of starting. People and life of the people was changing and the world was going into a new age.

Should the Police be Allowed to Enforce a Politician’s Verbal Restriction Against Making a Video of him at an Open Meeting

You can find multiple video’s of Legislatures signing bills or speaking at press briefings to inform the public. This is the freedom of the press, also known as free speech, aka the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

U.S Constitution

The above text is the First Amendment and gives the public access to filming at Public Meetings.

The question being is should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restrictions of filming them. The answer is simple. The police force is used to protect and serve the public. The politician’s job is to promote the view and idea’s of the general public. So when it comes to public meetings, the public should have access to the open meeting in question. Since the polices’ job is to enforce laws, they should be doing the opposite. Rather they should do nothing since it states nowhere in any laws that the police shouldn’t enforce a single politician’s word’s especially since they are denying a public the right of Freedom of Speech in the sense of a legislative meeting.

The State’s Power and Authority

There is a lot of questions on the power and authority of the state. Whether they have a right to decide what belongs to you and what doesn’t, how much money you should make and what you should pay for.

In the book “How to Argue with a Liberal” you can find many phrases depicting what the government should do and have power over. The same applies for the state’s authority. In the book it says that the government should only be there to do what the public cannot do on it’s own. It also talks about the right that the public has to private and public property.

The question still stands for what the State has power over. The state should have no authority over private property. They cannot decide what is yours and what belongs to the state or the public, that system was tried and tested through both Communism and Socialism. You can see how much power communist governments have over the people, the public has little to no rights.

The state should have no authority over public property such as parks and other public spaces.

The state should have no power over rights and amendments.

In final the state’s position is to do what the public is unable to do on it’s own.

The Catholic Church on the Verge of the Protestant Reformation

On the verge of the Catholic Reformation, the church was going through a phase of improper teaching measures and usage of members’ repentance.

Before the reformation, there were other contributors to the reformation before John Calvin and Martin Luther, however, when people base the reformation off of the acts of one person they contribute it to Martin Luther and assisted by John Calvin.

Martin Luther was a Lutheran Monk at the time the Pope was issuing Indulgences and Reprieves. An indulgence was purchased from the Catholic Church to lessen the amount of punishment you would receive for your sin. A Reprieve was similar to an Indulgence in which you could pay to be completely forgiven for your sin.

Martin Luther had an extreme opposition for the purchases of forgiveness and saw that the only way to be completely forgiven for your sins, was by faith and true repentance.

During the Reformation, there was also a lack of proper teachings of bishops and other higher authorities in the Church. His solution to these problems was under his ’95 Theses’ or also known as ‘The Disputation of Power and Efficiency of Indulgences’ which he had first nailed to a catholic Church door.

Some of the Theses being

“1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.” which had later discussed the issue of purchasing repentance from the Church.

Martin Luther had given a letter containing his 95 Theses to PopeLeo the 10th, John Staupitz, and to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and was approved on October 3, 1517, and had since changed the Catholic church for the better and thus ended the Protestant Reformation.

 

 

 

 

Key Idea’s of the Renaissance

The Renaissance time period gave Europe many contributions such as Humanism, Art, Politics, and more.

Humanism gave Europe a new outlook on lifestyle. Instead of having a religious belief, they gave the view of what was best for the person or a Human being. The act of Humanism really was a turning page from the past by doing away with traditional beliefs and religions. When you look up the word Renaissance, you find that it means a revival or a renewed interest which was precisely what the Renaissance was.

The period taking from the 14th century to the 17th century and later affecting Europes views.

Art was on a rise during this time and many great artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Donatello, and Giorgio Vasari. These artists would have some major contributions to future art and even lifestyle. With Leonardo giving futuristic ideas of flight and art, the Renaissance was one of the biggest contributions to Western Civilization.

The Effects of the Black Death in Europe

The Black Death is recorded as the worst Pandemic in history. With deaths reaching up to 200 million at its peak from 1347 to 1351. The infection that causes the plague is known as the Pestis infection which commonly results in the Bubonic Plague being transmitted through human interaction.

The Black Plague believed to originate from Central or East Asia.

The effects of the Black Plague resulting in a loss of almost 30%-60% of the entire population in Europe is what is believed to have spiked a large amount of reproduction in Europe. With Europe at loss from many workers, many peasants were taking jobs as field workers and receiving a large pay. With the manorial system in a weakened state before the plague, it was inevitable to reach the demise of the system.

People were migrating from Europe and farmers were having to shut down which caused a shortage of food and “mixing” the Plague effects more.