According to Wikipedia, “Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.” The main ideas of classical liberalism are liberty, individualism, and equal rights. Classical liberals believed that these three goals required a free economy with little  to no interference from the government.

Frederic Bastiat and his “Petition of the Candlemakers”. Fredrick Bastiat was a French economist and a libertarian. Basically in this essay he wrote “Petition of the Candlemakers”, candlemakers are arguing against unfair competition, the sun. The candlemakers want everyone tho close all windows, stay inside there houses so that the sun can not enter in. Therefore the candlemakers will sell more candles and make a bigger profit. Now this may be good for the candlemakers, but forcing people to buy something when there is a free alternative divertes all money supplies from other businesses and overall just decreases wealth. Bastiat concludes this essay with the following statement: “Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!”

Classical liberal themes that can be found in the work of Benjamin Constant. According to Wikipedia, “Constant emphasised how citizens in ancient states found more satisfaction in the public sphere and less in their private lives whereas modern people favoured their private life. Constant’s repeated denunciation of despotism pervaded his critique of French political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Abbé de Mably.

Did all four of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms promote liberty? First, let’s take a quick look at what Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are. According to National Archives, “Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address, commonly known as the “Four Freedoms” speech. In it he articulated a powerful vision for a world in which all people had freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from want and fear. It was delivered on January 6, 1941 and it helped change the world.” This speech must have been very influential back then if it helped to change the whole world. But, the speech says “Four Freedoms”, so what are the four freedoms mentioned in this speech? According to Wikipedia, “Freedom of Speech, by Booth Tarkington (February 20, 1943). Freedom of Worship, by Will Durant (February 27, 1943). Freedom from Want, by Carlos Bulosan (March 6, 1943). Freedom from Fear, by Stephen Vincent Benét (March 13, 1943; the date of Benét’s death).” So there is the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We will look at each of these in turn.

Basically, the freedom of speech means that someone has the right to say what ever he/she wants without interference or retaliation from the government. This is also known as free speech, as talked about in the first amendment.

The freedom of worship literally means that you can decide whatever religion you want to follow and you follow it, and nobody can interfere with your choice.

The freedom from want basically means that you do not have to worry about where you will get food from, were you will get clothes from, how you will get a roof over your head, where your next meal will come from, etc.

The freedom from fear is pretty self-explanatory. This means that you can live your life however you want to and you do not have to live in fear of oppression, fear of other countries, fear of war, fear of military aggression, etc.

Did all four of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms promote liberty? According to National Archives, “Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address, commonly known as the “Four Freedoms” speech. In it he articulated a powerful vision for a world in which all people had freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from want and fear.” So, we can easily see that all four of these speeches promoted freedom, but is freedom the same as liberty? According to the dictionary, freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” According to the dictionary, liberty is “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” So, is freedom the same as liberty? According to Wikipedia, “Sometimes liberty is differentiated from freedom by using the word “freedom” primarily, if not exclusively, to mean the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; and using the word “liberty” to mean the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved.” So, freedom is not necessarily the same as liberty, but I still say that all four of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms still promote liberty as well as freedom.

Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later? First, let’s look at what this means.

Let’s say that you put a piece of wood in a fire and burn it. And when the fire is out, there is nothing left of the wood except ashes. That is what a remnant is. The ashes are the remnant of the wood. According to the dictionary, remnant means “a small remaining quantity of something.” So what does the word majority mean? According to Merriam-Webster, a majority is “a number or quantity greater than half of a total“.

So what does the question ‘Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later’ mean? What I think this means, is “can the remaining quantity of something that happened in the past become very popular (or the majority) later in history?” I think it can. Remnants are little traces of things that can later grow into a majority, or even just a mass. Let’s say that there used to be a very religious people that were different from other religious people. They worshiped differently, they worshiped different things, etc., and these people died of until there was only a very small group of people that still practiced this type of worship. Some time later, word of this practice got out and other people began practicing this too, and later it became a mass, or even a majority, or the small group just influenced a bunch of people and those people just joined in on the small group and growing it into a large group over time. That is an example of what I think this question means (even though I entirely made it up).

You see, people can change overtime. A group of people can have an influence on other people, and those people can join the small group. Little by little, the small group grows into a large group. Over time, people can change there worldviews and beliefs. People can change there minds about this stuff. People change over time. There is no law saying you can not change your mind, or your view, or your belief. Changing is your very own choice as a human. You just need to make the right choice about how you are going to change and what your going to change to.

So, my answer to the question “Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later” is a yes, definitely. Why? I think that I have already given a very vast answer as to why I think this question has a yes answer. I said a lot about people changing over time and a small group of people influencing others and other people joining them making there small group a large group and still growing over time.

I think that all this info qualifies as the answer to the question “Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later?” And I answered with the answer yes to this question.

Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state? First, let’s look at what the free market and the welfare state are.

According to Wikipedia, “In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority.” So the free market is just a system were the prices of products and services are determined based on supply and demand which are expressed by the buyers and sellers.

According to the dictionary, the welfare state is “a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.” So the welfare state is basically where the government interferes in public affairs and tries to fix it itself.

So, which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state? Well, the free market is just a system were the prices of products and services are determined based on supply and demand which are expressed by the buyers and sellers, and the welfare state is basically where the government interferes in public affairs and tries to fix it itself. In my opinion, I think the free market promotes greater responsibility. The free market lets people do what they think is best, whereas the welfare state is just the government doing what they think is best.

According to Wikipedia, “The Congress of Vienna of 1814–1815 was a series of international diplomatic meetings to discuss and agree upon a possible new layout of the European political and constitutional order after the downfall of the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.” Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria and Prussia (the five great powers) were the nations that participated in the Congress of Vienna, and it did prove to be relatively stable. This meeting between these five powers was to discuss and arrange a possible new layout of the political and constitutional order in Europe after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte.

According to Wikipedia, “The Carlsbad Decrees were a set of reactionary restrictions introduced in the states of the German Confederation by resolution of the Bundesversammlung on 20 September 1819 after a conference held in the spa town of Carlsbad, Austrian Empire.” So, these decrees were introduced in Germany in the year 1819. According to Deutscher Bundestag, “The Carlsbad Decrees, adopted in 1819 at the instigation of Austria’s foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich, established a police-state regime of surveillance and repression, designed to keep a tight lid on any opposition activity.” The main purpose of the Carlsbad Decrees was to keep a tight lid on any opposition activity.

What was compulsory state education? According to Wikipedia, “Compulsory education refers to a period of education that is required of all people and is imposed by the government. This education may take place at a registered school or at other places. Compulsory school attendance or compulsory schooling means that parents are obliged to send their children to a certain school.” The first country to do compulsory state education was Germany in the year 1592, followed by most of the world a few years later.

Is the state the source of human rights? First, let’s discuss what human rights are. According to Wikipedia, “Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected in municipal and international law.” We, as humans, have rights to many things, and I could list some of them for you if I wanted to, but all human rights buckle down to just these three main rights. #1: Life, #2: Liberty, and #3: Property. Any other rights just expand from these three main human rights. And human rights can never be taken away from you, no matter what anyone says.

So, is the state the source of human rights? According to OHCHR, “Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental – the right to life – to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.” So, as we see here, human rights are not granted by any state, but instead, we have these human rights simply because we are human beings. The state can not just take away your rights just because they feel like it. Human rights are something that no one can take away from you, so no, the state is not the source of human rights.

So, for this week in my school, I have been assigned to read the book Paradise Lost, by John Milton. According to Wikipedia, “John Milton was an English poet and intellectual. His 1667 epic poem Paradise Lost, written in blank verse and including over ten chapters, was written in a time of immense religious flux and political upheaval.” He was born on December 9, 1608, and died on November 8, 1674. John Milton is known for his epic poetry, one of which, is Paradise Lost.

Paradise Lost was an epic poetry written by John Milton. According to the British Library, “Paradise Lost is an epic poem (12 books, totaling more than 10,500 lines) written in blank verse, telling the biblical tale of the Fall of Mankind – the moment when Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and God banished them from the Garden of Eden forever.” OK, so you can see here that John Milton believed God was real, but he kind of twisted what the Bible says about the Fall of Adam and Eve in order to get an epic poem. The theme of Paradise Lost is then religious and has three parts: 1: disobedience, 2: Eternal Providence, and 3: justification of God to men. According to Britannica, “Many scholars consider Paradise Lost to be one of the greatest poems in the English language. It tells the biblical story of the fall from grace of Adam and Eve (and, by extension, all humanity) in language that is a supreme achievement of rhythm and sound.” The style in which this book was written was clearly influenced by the epic Greek poetry.

After Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false? Well, first we have to look at the definition of jealousy and envy. Jealousy means “fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions”, and envy means “desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable attribute belonging to (someone else).” By the definition of jealousy, we can see that jealousy is fueled by the fear of losing something, and envy, as we see in the definition, means you want something somebody else has. So, we can see that Satan was, in fact, envious of God and God’s position and power over him. Satan wanted that power and position that God has for himself. He thought that if he had the kind of power God has, then he could overthrow God and rid himself of God’s power over him forever. This lust for power and control is what got Satan cast out of heaven in the first place. He was envious of God’s power. He was envious and rebellious and that is what got him thrown out of heaven. But even when he was cast out of heaven, he still made plans to try to get back at God and take his power. He wanted to get revenge. So, he made Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, even after they were warned by God not to, which got them kicked out of the garden. After that, Satan and his followers were turned to snakes after going back to hell after there mission.

So, after Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false? My answer, is true.

Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals? Let’s look through this simple question piece by piece. What is restitution to victims? Basically, a restitution can be given to a victim by an offender if the offender hurts or does something illegal to the victim. So, lets say that a guy steals from somebody and is caught. The offender (the guy who stole from the victim) has to pay back the victim (the guy who was stolen from) what he stole, sometimes even more than what he stole. That is an example of restitution to victims. What is jail sentences for criminals? I think that is pretty self-explanatory. Let’s say that a guy steals from another guy and instead of paying restitution to the victim, he goes to jail for a specific amount of time based on what he’s done. That is an example of jail sentences for criminals.

Now, which is better for society? Is the offender paying back the victim what the offender did to the victim? Or is it better for the victim to go to jail for a specific time? I will say a little bit about each of these, and make my decision then.

If the offender payed back the victim what the offender did to the victim, the victim may benefit from getting payed back, but the offender does not learn anything. The offender will just keep harming people in some way, but he does not learn anything. Why? Because the offender is not punished. If the offender is not punished, the offender does not learn anything and will just keep doing it. Now, it may help that one person whom the offender payed back (or not), but in the long run, it does not help society.

Now, if the offender harms a guy, and does not have to pay restitution, but instead goes to jail, that may be a little better for society. Again, why? Well, if a guy harms someone else, and does not pay restitution but instead goes to jail, he learns from being in jail, that what he did was wrong, and he should not do it again (or at least some people think that, others just go back to there evil ways once they get back out of jail), and once he gets out, he never does it again. He learned because he was punished. Now, the victim may not benefit, but the society definitely will.

Now, which is better for the society, restitution to victims or jail sentences for criminals? I think that jail sentences for criminals is ultimately better for the society, however, if both of these were used, the offender had to pay restitution to the victim and he had to go to jail, then the society would be better and everyone would benefit, except for the offender, of course.

And that is my full answer to the simple question “Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals?”

The Industrial Revolution was basically the transition to new manufacturing processes. This occurred in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States. It lasted from about 1760 to 1820–1840. The important technological developments were textiles, steam power, iron making, and the invention of machine tools. These technological changes introduced new ways of working and living, and it completely transformed society.

What was the standard-of-living debate? Well, the debate is about whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. According to investopedia.con, “Standard of living generally refers to wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities of certain classes in certain areas whereas quality of life is more subjective and intangible, such as personal liberty or environmental quality.” Now, before the Industrial Revolution, several people worked on farms and traded what they made for things that other people made (this is called bartering). After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increase in wealth, the production of goods, and the standard of living. People had access to healthier diets, better housing, and cheaper goods and education increased during the Industrial Revolution. So, the standard-of-living debate is about whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. I say that the standard of living got better, actually, despite all the negatives concerning it.

There were many different arguments that lead up to the abolition of slavery in Britain, and I am going to tell you a little bit about this. William Wilberforce was a key figure in the abolition of slavery in Britain. He wanted to abolish slavery, and over time, like minded figures joined him, which lead to the foundation of the Anti-Slavery Society. Wilberforce continued to give many speeches in the House of Commons. By 1807, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act. This was a huge step toward his goal, but it only banned slave trade, but not slavery itself. By 1833, however, the wheels were turning for a new piece of legislation to be passed. Sadly, however, Wilberforce died only three days later. This new act banned slavery in Britain as well as in a few other places.

Would In some cases, people can better understand what the author is trying to convey to the reader if the author uses experiences of his or her life. It works better for me. Anyway, this method is very effective in conveying the message of the book to the reader. Some authors do this, but others just leave out examples of their life. Francis Bacon was one of these people. He did not give any experiences of his own life in his essays.

According to Wikipedia, “Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban PC, QC, also known as Lord Verulam, was an English philosopher and statesman who served as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England.” He was born on January 22, 1561 and died on April 9, 1626. He wrote several well known essays. According to Wikipedia, “Essayes: Religious Meditations. Places of Perswasion and Disswasion. Seene and Allowed was the first published book by the philosopher, statesman and jurist Francis Bacon. The Essays are written in a wide range of styles, from the plain and unadorned to the epigrammatic.” His essays were originally published in 1597.  There are lots and lots of themes in Bacon’s essays, for example: adversity and prosperity, married life and single life, parents and children, love, envy, revenge, nobility, unity in religion, goodness, superstition, traveling, atheism, truth, death, simulation and dissimulation, etc. Bacon said he had three goals with these essays, to serve his church, to serve his country, and to uncover truth. According to, “Bacon’s essays are reflective and philosophical. The essay is a series of counsels, It is not an elaborate or discursive development of a particular subject. It is neatly direct and frankly didactic. He is moralist and his essays are meant for men of ambition in the Renaissance, which desired self-realisation.” Bacon also put some moral teachings into his essay. According to, “His essays suggest us not to seek morality only by leaving practical idea. There is nothing wrong with the mixture of morality and the practical idea together. Just as no ornament is possible with pure gold, some crude metal should be added with it so only morality without practical concept of a thing cannot do.”

Would any of Bacon’s essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? Well, I were to say that if Bacon put his own experiences into his essays, the essays would definitely be more persuasive. The essays would be more persuasive if Bacon put his own experiences of himself into the essays. Like if Bacon had experiences in his life where he used what he wrote about in his essays, and then put that into his essays, the essays would be a lot more persuasive than without his experiences. If he did that, then we could know more about what he meant because he gave us an example of himself using what he wrote about in his essay, and we could understand it better.

Overall, my answer to the topic question is yes, they would.