Author: Jeffrey Pitts

The novel Robinson Crusoe was written by Daniel Defoe. It was written in 1719 and was first published on 25 April, 1719. The novel’s first edition credited the work’s protagonist Robinson Crusoe as the novel’s author. This lead many to believe that Robinson Crusoe was a real person and the book was a story of true events that happened in his life. This novel is very descriptive with every that happens in the book, so descriptive, in fact, that you can create a visual image in your brain of what is happening, it is like you are right there with him. I love that in a book, and I am sure that lots of people agree with me, maybe even you. (You can read my other paper on Robinson Crusoe called Robinson Crusoe, “How important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms?”)

According to Wikipedia, “Daniel Defoe was an English writer, trader, journalist, pamphleteer and spy. He is most famous for his novel Robinson Crusoe, published in 1719, which is claimed to be second only to the Bible in its number of translations.” This is pretty impressive. Robinson Crusoe was Daniel Defoe’s greatest work, and many people believe it to be the second most translated book in the world. Apparently, he was a very good writer, and obviously people loved his book. It is also still widely read even today.

Now in the title, “Why did he take the coins off the ship?”, you may be asking yourself, “what coins?” Well, just in case you do not know what I am talking about, I am going to give a recap of what I have read.

In the beginning of the book, Robinson Crusoe leaves his home in search of adventure. Later, he is on a ship, sailing to a place where he can build a life, and a storm rolls in, and damages the ship, but does not sink it. Later, another storm comes in and sinks the ship, but Crusoe and some other people escape in lifeboats. Eventually they get rescued by another ship and this ship takes Crusoe and the crew to Brazil. Later into the book, Crusoe builds a plantation in Brazil and becomes very wealthy. Eventually, he listens to some people to go to Africa and get some slaves to bring back, and he says he would. On the course to Africa, another storm rolls in and maroons the ship a ways back from the shore of an island. Crusoe himself survives, everyone else dies. Crusoe then tries to empty the ship of everything useful so he can survive on the island, but he is worried when another storm comes and sinks the ship, along with everything on it. Crusoe then tries to empty the ship of everything useful before the next storm hits. About a little under a month later, he finally empties the ship of anything useful, and a storm comes that night, sinking the ship. Later in the book, the hull of the ship reappears, this time much closer to shore. He decides to explore the ship, and on it he finds some coins. He then decides not to take them because they would be useless on a deserted island, but then he had second thoughts, and takes the coins.

Why would he take useless coins to a deserted island? Maybe it was to melt them down to useful metal, or the help build something, or maybe even to barter a way off the island just in case a ship happens to find him. Whatever the reason, I do not know.

According to Wiley, the French revolution was “a popular rebellion that succeeded in overthrowing the rule of King Charles X and his ministers. The revolt was prompted by the government’s rejection of legitimate election results and its suspension of the constitution.” The purpose of this revolution was to overthrow the king of France, and the revolution succeeded, and King Charles X was overthrown, along with all his ministers. So what happened in France during the Revolution of 1840? According to Wikipedia, “The 1830 Revolution marked a shift from one constitutional monarchy, under the restored House of Bourbon, to another, the July Monarchy; the transition of power from the House of Bourbon to its cadet branch, the House of Orléans; and the replacement of the principle of hereditary right by that of popular sovereignty.“

Were the Revolutions of 1848 successful or unsuccessful? These Revolutions were a series of republican revolts against European monarchies. These revolts began in Sicily, and eventually spread to France, Germany, Italy, and the Austrian Empire. All of these revolts ended in massive failure, and were followed by widespread disillusionment among people called liberals.

The novel Robinson Crusoe was written by Daniel Defoe. It was written in 1719 and was first published on 25 April, 1719. The novel’s first edition credited the work’s protagonist Robinson Crusoe as the novel’s author. This lead many to believe that Robinson Crusoe was a real person and the book was a story of true events that happened in his life. This novel is very descriptive with every that happens in the book, so descriptive, in fact, that you can create a visual image in your brain of what is happening, it is like you are right there with him. I love that in a book, and I am sure that lots of people agree with me, maybe even you.

According to Wikipedia, “Daniel Defoe was an English writer, trader, journalist, pamphleteer and spy. He is most famous for his novel Robinson Crusoe, published in 1719, which is claimed to be second only to the Bible in its number of translations.” This is pretty impressive. Robinson Crusoe was Daniel Defoe’s greatest work, and many people believe it to be the second most translated book in the world. Apparently, he was a very good writer, and obviously people loved his book. It is also still widely read even today.

Now, in the title “How important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms?”, what do I mean when I say storms? Now, you may have read Robinson Crusoe,  and if you did you may know what I am talking about, but in case that you do not know what I am talking about, I will give a brief recap of the storms in the book I have read so far.

Now, so far, in what I have read there are four storms. First, Crusoe leaves his home in search of adventure in the beginning of the novel. He is on a ship, sailing to a place where he can build a life, and a storm rolls in, and damages the ship, but does not sink it. Later, another storm comes in and sinks the ship, but Crusoe and some other people escape in lifeboats. Later into the book, Crusoe builds a plantation in Brazil and becomes very wealthy. Eventually, he listens to some people to go to Africa and get some slaves to bring back, and he says he would. On the course to Africa, another storm rolls in and maroons the ship on a reef next to an island. Crusoe himself survives, everyone else dies. Crusoe then tries to empty the ship of everything useful so he can survive on the island, but he is worried when another storm comes and sinks the ship, along with everything on it. Crusoe then tries to empty the ship of everything useful before the next storm hits. About a little under a month later,  he finally empties the ship of anything useful, and a storm comes that night, sinking the ship.

Robinson Crusoe, How important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms? Well, a narrative is basically just a story, and Defoe writes this book as if Crusoe is the author. It is written in first and third person. So how important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms? Crusoe describes the storms with much detail, and these descriptions are very important for the narrative, because it helps give readers a visual about what the storms look like, what would happen next, things like that, and that is good for any good story.

According to Study.com, “Utopian socialism is socialism that is achieved through the moral persuasion of capitalists to surrender the means of production peacefully to the people. This belief holds that, through conscience and morals, people could work together in society and live together communally without the need for money or class.” This sounds amazing. Imagine a world with no money, no fighting, no class, no authority (well, maybe just one guy above it all making sure things run smoothly). That would be paradise. This is basically what utopian socialism is.

According to Wikipedia, “Neoclassicism (also spelled Neo-classicism) was a Western cultural movement in the decorative and visual arts, literature, theatre, music, and architecture that drew inspiration from the art and culture of classical antiquity.” So, Neoclassicism was just another art movement that began in the late 1700s and ended in the early 1800s. The characteristics of Neoclassicism are clarity of form, sober colors, shallow space, strong horizontal and verticals that render that subject matter timeless, and classical subject matter.

According to Wikipedia, “Romanticism was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century; in most areas it was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850.” This was also another art movement. The characteristics of Romanticism are emotion and passion, the critique of progress, a return to the past, an awe of nature, the search for subjective truth, the celebration of the individual, shall I go on? I do not think that I have to, but these are just some of the many characteristics of Romanticism.

In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism? Like I do with all my papers, let’s break down this topic into smaller pieces. First, who was Mandeville? According to Wikipedia, “Bernard Mandeville, or Bernard de Mandeville, was an Anglo-Dutch philosopher, political economist and satirist. Born in Rotterdam, he lived most of his life in England and used English for most of his published works. He became famous for The Fable of the Bees.” Mandeville was born November 15, 1670, and died January 21, 1733. His work The Fable of the Bees was written in 1714. The Fable of the Bees was Mandeville’s most notable work. According to Wikipedia, the main message of The Fable of the Bees is “As they abandon their desire for personal gain, the economy of their hive collapses, and they go on to live simple, “virtuous” lives in a hollow tree. Mandeville’s implication—that private vices create social benefits—caused a scandal when public attention turned to the work, especially after its 1723 edition.” Mandeville’s book The Fable of the Bees triggered immense public criticism during his time. Mandeville is mainly remembered for his impact on discussions of morality and economic theory in the early eighteenth century.

What is Darwinism? Darwinism is just basically just the study of the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin. According to Wikipedia, “Charles Robert Darwin FRS FRGS FLS FZS JP was an English naturalist, geologist, and biologist, widely known for his contributions to evolutionary biology. His proposition that all species of life have descended from a common ancestor is now generally accepted and considered a fundamental concept in science.” According to Britannica, “Charles Darwin, in full Charles Robert Darwin, (born February 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent), English naturalist whose scientific theory of evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies.” Now, I do not believe in evolution or Darwinism, but nevertheless, Darwin was a very influential guy in his time, and his works on evolution are still widely accepted today.

In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism? Well, Mandeville has been thought to lay the foundation for Darwinism through his own ideas concerning social order. This talk of social order blended rather nicely with Darwin’s ideas and understanding of natural selection (According to Wikipedia, natural selection is “the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.”). Mandeville strongly believed that every single man acted only to serve himself and pursue his own interests. But he also believed that every man acting only for his own interests was crucial to the economy and to the society. Darwin’s view on this is that people acting only to serve themselves and only pursuing their own interests will eventually lead to a survival of the best type of economy and society. That is my full and complete answer to the question “In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism?”

Is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools? Like all my essays, let’s look at this topic in smaller sections. First, what does state-subsidized mean exactly? In short, state-subsidized means that part of something is paid for by the state. But this also means that the state controls you, and as long as the state is paying you, you are basically a slave to the state. So, let’s say there is a state-subsidized church, or school. This means that part of the church or school is paid for by the state.

So what are state-subsidized churches? So basically, a state-subsidized church means that the state gives it money, but that also means that if the state gives the church money, then the state has the authority to tell the church “We are shutting you down” or “You have to leave” or “You owe us money”, etc. So, it is kind of like a kind of deal. The state gives the church money, but that also means that the state owns the church. The state tells the church what to teach, how to teach it, what to do if the church needed repairs, etc., or the state could just shut down the church. Now, I go to a church that is not state-subsidized, and the church is getting along extremely well, even without the state’s money.

What is a state-subsidized school? A state-subsidized school is literally the same thing as a state-subsidized church. Same deal. The state gives you money, but that also means that the state controls the school. Pretty much all public schools are state-subsidized. The state gives them money, which of course the school needs, but the state also can tell the school what to teach kids, how to teach the kids, how much the teachers get paid, etc. That is why we have private schools. Private schools do not receive money from the state, in fact, it is illegal for private schools to receive money from the state. That way, private schools can teach whatever they want and the state can not shut control them or shut them down. This is really good for the school just in case the state does not like what the private schools are teaching, but the state does not have the authority to shut them down. However, this means that private schools are a lot smaller than public schools because they do not get as much money as the public schools, but at least the private schools are free the teach whatever they want, unlike the public schools.

Is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools? Well ,the way I see it, no, there is no difference. State-subsidized basically means that the state gives you money, but the state also controls you. There are not just state-subsidized churches and schools. There are many other businesses or buildings or maybe even people who are state-subsidized. So, my overall answer to this question is no, no there is no difference.

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.