Is “income inequality” a problem? According to Britannica, “income inequality, in economics, significant disparity in the distribution of income between individuals, groups, populations, social classes, or countries. Income inequality is a major dimension of social stratification and social class.” According to International Monetary Fund, “Excessive inequality can erode social cohesion, lead to political polarization, and lower economic growth.” I think that this is enough information to know that income inequality is a problem if it is used regularly.

What have been the effects of foreign aid programs, such that virtually everyone was describing them as failures by the 1990s? According to, one of the negitive effects of foreign aid is “Increase dependency-less economically developed countries (LEDCs) become more dependent on donor countries and become heavily dependent, which causes the economy the stay at equilibrium” Here are some more disadvantages according to “Exhaustion of Vital Resources. Has an impact on the domestic industry. Lopsided economic growth. The Dangers of Dumping. Reliance on foreign countries. Opposition to national defense. Economic planning and unpredictability. Legal inconsistency.”

What is the process by which the market economy tends toward an improvement in the standard of living? The answer is economic growth. According to CK-12, “Growth in an economy is measured by a continual increase in the production of goods and services. As a result of economic growth, the standard of living improves, meaning people are making more money, the population is able to grow, and education levels rise.

What are some of the problems with the concept of public goods? Public goods usually refer to a commodity or service that is made available to all members of society, in economics anyway. They are also usually collectively paid for by taxation and are administered by governments. Examples include national defense, rule of law, law enforcement, and even much simpler things like drinking water and clean air to breath. An important issue that relates to public goods is known as the free-rider problem. According to Investopedia, “Since public goods are made available to all people–regardless of whether each person individually pays for them–it is possible for some members of society to use the good despite refusing to pay for it.” According to, “The free-rider problem arises when individuals who benefit from a public good avoid paying for it. Because consumers have the inducement to be free riders rather than purchasers, the market will not generate an efficient outcome and hence market failure.” If large, or widespread enough, the free-rider problem could destroy markets, and then no one else could use it.

In my opinion, does the state have the right to redistribute wealth from some people to others? This is a very simple answer. The answer is no. The state cannot take wealth from some people to give it to others. If the state took money from you and gave it to another person, that would be a violation of your right to property, because your wealth is your property. The state cannot make you give your property to someone else, even if it was the president himself telling you to give your wealth to someone else, you do not have to do it. It’s your property, not his. Now you can make a choice to show kindness to people who are less fortunate than you, but no one should have to make you do it. Now, some governments take wealth or property to give to other people, but they are wrong.

 According to Justia Law, “[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.” So the right of free speech can be in the abstract, but not all the time. According to Foundation for Economic Education, “Property rights then became the ac knowledged foundation upon which other constitutional freedoms rested, including freedom of speech.” So property rights became the knowledged foundation for which other constitutional freedoms rested, and this includes the freedom of speech. So is there a “right of free speech” in the abstract, or is the question of free speech at root a matter of property rights? There can be a right of free speech in the abstract, but it is rested upon property rights, the knowledged foundation for which other constitutional freedoms rested.

What is the difference between negative rights and positive rights? According to Tom Woods, “Negative rights do not require anything from anyone else except not interfering with you, and positive rights place some obligation on others to bestow certain benefits on you.” An example of negative rights is imagine someone is very sick  and the only cure is on Mars. That man cannot say “Go get it because I have a right to my life”, because negative rights means no one can interfere with him or his life, and a mission to Mars to find the only cure is interfering with that man’s life, so he can’t demand that they go to Mars to get the cure. It does not work that way. According to Saint Clara University, “Positive rights, therefore, are rights that provide something that people need to secure their well being, such as a right to an education, the right to food, the right to medical care, the right to housing, or the right to a job.

How does the Age of Discovery provide an opportunity for Spanish thinkers to reflect on the idea of rights? First, what are rights? Rights give you the ability to do things and nobody is allowed to stop you. Your rights are your Life, Liberty, and Property. Your right to life means you can live, even if lots of people don’t want you to (for example). Your right to liberty means that you can say or do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. Your right to property means that no one can take your stuff, which is why stealing is not allowed. Now, I don’t know a lot about how the Age of Discovery provide an opportunity for Spanish thinkers to reflect on the idea of rights, except for this one example. The Age of Discovery was when people from Europe came to America to explore it and discover new things. Along the way, they discovered the Natives. The Europeans thought that the Natives were savages and were not civilized enough to live among them, when in fact, some of the Natives were more civilized than some Europeans.. So they killed and enslaved numerous amounts of them. They also stole from them and destroyed there villages. The Europeans were violating the Native’s rights to life, liberty, and property! So how does the Age of Discovery provide an opportunity for Spanish thinkers to reflect on the idea of rights? Well, these wrongdoings of the Natives forced many prominent thinkers to reconsider the idea of rights. They realized that it doesn’t matter if these Natives have a different religion, or belief, or that they look different. They deserve the rights that anyone else in the world has.

 What does John Locke mean by self-ownership? John Locke was a English philosopher and physician. He is considered one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. What does John Locke mean by self-ownership? According to Cambridge University Press and Assessment, “For Locke, initial full self-ownership thus expresses absolute original independence from human authority as well as rights of civil and political self-determination. It is not expressive of unlimited rights in our life or body—the ultimate owner of which is God.