Author: Jeffrey Pitts

 This topic refers to Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis, published during the American Revolution. A critique is kind of like a criticism. So what I am supposed to to is write a criticism referring to Pain’s American Crisis from the point of view of a loyalist to the British.

Paine’s idea of this pamphlet was idealizes the American citizens and the countries origins, and uses this to encourage them to fight for independence rather than be subjects loyal to Britain. He encourages them to continue to fight for independence in their strive for freedom from Britain.

If I were loyal to Britain, I would say that the colonists are wasting their time, that Paine was wasting his time writing these pamphlets. That even though they wanted independence, Britain still owned them, and they were loyal to Britain whether they liked it or not. I would also say that America would prosper much better if it were under Britain rather than independent from it. That the men trying to fight for independence would all die in the war, and America would still be under Britain’s control. I would tell Paine that he was giving the colonists false hope, telling they to fight for independence and claim freedom from the British. That his false hope encouraging the colonists to fight for independence would get the colonists killed. That him and his pamphlet would cost the colonists their lives.

If I were loyal to Britain (which thankfully I am not), this would be my criticism of Paine’s pamphlet. I do not know if it would do any good though.

Would I pay 20% more to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods? Why would I do that? Prices are already high enough. I would not pay even more to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods. Now, American-made goods are helpful, but not all of America’s goods can be helpful. In fact, some of the best things are made in China. I would buy American things, but to pay 20% extra to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods? I would never. If there was an item you wanted to buy and it was made in China, but you found the same item elsewhere and it was made in America, but the item made in America was 20% more, which one of these two items would you want to buy? I would assume it would be the one made in China. And that goes for every other nation as well. I you did all of your shopping at a store that sells only American-made goods because you do not want to buy anything that was made in another country, does that mean that you do not like the other countries that the US buys things from? What kind of message are you sending to other people? Now, I may pay an extra 20% at a store that sells only American-made goods, but only if it has the item I need, and I can not find it anywhere else. Otherwise, I would not go there and pay an unnecessary extra 20%.

The author of Common Sense, Thomas Paine, was an American Founding Father, even though he was born in England (he was actually encouraged to move to Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin in London). He was also a political activist, philosopher, political theorist, and revolutionary. He is most remembered for his pamphlet called Common Sense. Common sense was written by Paine from 1775-1776. It was a forty-seven page pamphlet that advocated independence to the thirteen colonies from Great Britain. Paine argues for two main points in Common Sense. He argues for independence from Britain, and also for the creation of a democratic republic. This pamphlet inspired the people to fight for their independence from Britain. It also had a huge impact on the American independence movement. In this pamphlet, he continually calls the founding fathers and the colonists to take action against the oppression of the British government. Because he was born in Britain, he understood the injustices of Britain. Because of this, he made it clearly obvious in his pamphlet to call for independence from Britain. He argues this throughout his pamphlet.

What is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? There are many arguments displayed in common sense. For starters, Paine argued that it was crazy for an island to rule over a continent, and of course he was talking about Great Britain ruling over America. He also argued that if America were free from Great Britain, they could avoid European conflicts. He went on to argue that London was way too far away from America to rule it, and that the King and Parliament would eventually rule over America for Britain’s benefit instead of the America’s, which was the exact opposite for why the Pilgrims left in the first place. Some loyalists to Britain argued the America has thrived under Britain’s rule, but Paine argues that America would had thrived even more if it was an independent country. He argued that one of America’s greatest strengths was trade and commerce, and because of this it would have been even more successful if it had not been limited to trade with only the British. He also argued that Britain only protected America against Britain’s enemies only for Britain’s benefits. Paine argued that Britain’s enemies had no quarrel with America, and that America would eventually be pulled into Britain’s wars. He communicated with the colonists through his pamphlet on a more personal level, and he said that the moving to America was to escape the tyranny of Britain, but they were still under it’s rule. He said that with independence, they could gain freedom from Britain, which is why they left Britain to move to America in the first place. With his pamphlet, he was able to invoke passion into the colonists throughout the colonies. Now, these were all valid arguments, but what is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? According to LitCharts, “Paine’s argument throughout Common Sense relies heavily upon a logical fallacy: he consistently appeals to God as the definitive moral authority.“

‘First come, first served’ simply means that people will be served according to the order in which they arrive or apply. It is like concert tickets. If you come first, you get served (get the tickets) first. However, if you do not come first, but a lot later, the tickets will probably be sold out. This is kind of like another quote I heard once, ‘you snooze, you lose’. And this is totally true. It is used all the time today.

‘High bid wins’ is like at an auction. Whoever pays the most, or offers up the highest bid, wins or gets the product being offered.

Each of these ‘quotes’ are used every day today, and they are everywhere. They are also distributed to the companies who sell products according to the buyers. For example, you would not put groceries up for auction to the highest bidder, or vice versa. It just does not work that way. In what areas of my life would I prefer ‘first come, first served’ to ‘high bid wins’? Like I just said, I would prefer ‘first come, first served’ to stores, among other things. I just think that the economy is fine just the way it is. ‘First come, first served’ is used by the companies that should be using it anyway, and ‘high bid wins’ is used exactly were it should be used. The economy is not perfect, but these two ‘quotes’ are being practiced by the companies that should be using them.

What did Professor Hasnas mean when he claimed that the idea of the rule of law is a myth? The rule of law is a political idea that all citizens and institutions within a specific community, state, country, etc. are all under the same law, including the people who make these laws, and the leaders. It can be simplified by the statement “no one is above the law”. However, Professor Hasnas at Georgetown University Law Center claims that the rule of law is a myth. What does he mean by this? According to taylorfrancis.com, “This chapter begins with what is intended as an entertaining reprise of the main jurisprudential arguments designed to show that there is no such thing as a government of laws and not people and that the belief that there is constitutes a myth that serves to maintain the public’s support for society’s power structure.” (“This chapter” refers to Hasnas’s book Anarchy and the Law, the chapter titled The Myth of the Rule of Law.)

Professor Casey claims that the idea of political representation is an empty one. How does he defend this argument? Basically, political representation is when politicians represent the citizens and they act in the best interest of the citizens, making the citizens “present” in public policy-making processes. How does Professor Casey defend his argument that the idea of political representation is an empty idea? He once said that representation is insufficient to cover the brutal fact that despite our sophisticated modern states, the elegant rhetoric, and persuasive propaganda, some rule, and others are ruled.

Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education? Think of it this way: If you pay a piper (a musician who plays the pipe) some money to play for you, you get to call the tune, or song, that the piper plays, or at least that was how it was back then. Does this happen in education? It happens sometimes. Let me explain. In an earlier essay, I wrote about tax-supported schools. In that essay, I wrote the following: “If the government pays the institution, they get to decide what is taught and what is not taught….public schools are tax-supported, so the government decides what is taught and what is not taught.” The government (the person who pays the piper) pays the public school system (the piper) to keep them in business, however, the government tells the school system what to teach and how to teach it. Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education? For the public school system, yes, but not for private schools or homeschoolers. Private schools and homeschoolers are not paid by the government, therefore they can teach whatever they want, not what the government tells them to. In my other essay, I also wrote: “Whereas private schools are not tax-supported, so they can teach whatever they want. They do not need to ask permission from the government to teach what they want to teach. That is why private schools are incredibly better than public schools. Although there is another solution, homeschooling.” I homeschool, and it is paradise (almost).

How was the standard of living affected by the Industrial Revolution? According to Wikipedia, “Standard of living is the level of income, comforts and services available, generally applied to a society or location, rather than to an individual. Standard of living is relevant because it is considered to contribute to an individual’s quality of life.” How was the standard of living affected by the Industrial Revolution? Many people will probably say that the Industrial Revolution was a big failure and nothing really change, but that was not the case. In fact, the Industrial Revolution had many positive effects. It increased wealth, production of goods, and even the standard of living. People also had an increasing access to healthier diets, better houses, and cheaper goods. And as an added “bonus”, there was an increase in education. The Industrial Revolution was a big success.

Was the New Deal was a wise series of government actions that healed the problems afflicting the economy? Well, the New Deal did help heal the economy, and it did help the US win WWII, but I do not think that it was “wise”. According to the National Archives (.gov), “Roosevelt’s “New Deal” aimed at promoting economic recovery and putting Americans back to work through Federal activism. New Federal agencies attempted to control agricultural production, stabilize wages and prices, and create a vast public works program for the unemployed.“

Thy Lord hath saved us from certain doom,

from the British, our fierce foes,

in the battles, when cannons go boom,

when in our just fright, we froze.

 

Thy Lord hath saved us, when in our eyes,

we lost the war already,

but thy Lord will help, and we shall rise,

for you we shall be ready.

 

Thy Lord hath saved us from the British,

now we are free from our woes,

the war, with thy Lord’s help, we finished,

and we have beat our old foes.

What are the different African government successes for different African economies? There are many different examples of African governments, but I will mention two of the most well-known.

One of the worst ones was Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko. Zaire had rich copper mines and experienced an economic boom in the 1970s with copper prices rising. Zaire became prosperous because of this. However, this wealth was absorbed by the government and mainly Mobutu. He spent enormous sums of money on monuments and palaces. He made himself one of the world’s wealthiest men. He also launched the African “authenticity” program. Basically, Africans were to replace their Christian names with African names, they could not wear Western clothing, Christmas was canceled, and Mobutu’s portraits were in all the churches. He also drove out Asian merchants and Belgian technicians and businessmen. And when copper prices fell in the 1980s, his economic boom ended. And of course he had to invite the Asian’s and Belgian’s back. He also had high price inflation. He also had high debt. In summary, this form of government was a total failure.

The other one was Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta. He did not socialize the economy, he retained capitalist incentives, he did not tax people incredibly high, Kenya did not have mineral deposits, and less than 20% of its land was suitable for farming. Yet, Kenya did much better than Zaire did. He did not tax people to death. He did not drive out Europeans, in fact, he wanted their know-how, so that Africans could learn from them and have an even more prosperous society. Tourism and foreign investment were even encouraged. There was also the one-party rule. So you can see the massive differences between these two countries.

What are some of the major arguments advanced by the Public Choice school of economics? What is the public choice theory in economics? According to Wikipedia, “Public choice refers to the behavior and process of what public goods are provided, how they are provided and distributed, and the corresponding matching rules are established. Public choice theory expects to study and influence people’s public choice processes to maximize their social utility.” What are some of the major arguments? According to Econlib, “Public choice economists make the same assumption—that although people acting in the political marketplace have some concern for others, their main motive, whether they are voters, politicians, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, is self-interest.“

What is front-loading? According to the dictionary, front-loading means to “distribute or allocate (costs, effort, etc.) unevenly, with the greater proportion at the beginning of the enterprise or process.” It basically means to over-promise what it can deliver.

What is political engineering? It is when the military (or any other organization) spreads around a project to different infirmaries to make sure the job gets done. For example, if an organization wanted to build a plane, one infirmary would build one part of the plane, another infirmary would build another part, and another infirmary would put the pieces together, forming an airplane.

What does it mean to be tax-supported? First, what are taxes? According to Wikipedia, “A tax is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed on a taxpayer by a governmental organization in order to collectively fund government spending, public expenditures, or as a way to regulate and reduce negative externalities.” I think that being tax-supported means that an institution is supported by taxes that people pay.

Is a tax-supported school different in principle from a tax-supported church? In principle, there is no difference between tax-supported schools and churches. If the government pays the institution, they get to decide what is taught and what is not taught. My church is not tax-supported, and it is doing perfectly fine. The church does not need money from the government in order to stay there, it does fine without it. Also, public schools are tax-supported, so the government decides what is taught and what is not taught, and look at where that got them. If you are not public schooled, have you seen what kind of crap and garbage those schools are teaching? Whereas private schools are not tax-supported, so they can teach whatever they want. They do not need to ask permission from the government to teach what they want to teach. That is why private schools are incredibly better than public schools. Although there is another solution, homeschooling. You work from home, and all you need to pay for is the school. I have been homeschooling for all my life, and already I know that I am more mature than some people twice my age who went to public school all their life.