Blog

Was Lady Macbeth correct? ‘What’s done is done.’ This phrase was taken from the tragic play titled Macbeth written by William Shakespeare. According to Wikipedia, “William Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England’s national poet and the “Bard of Avon”.” He was a very famous playwright and he wrote several plays, including Macbeth. According to Google books, “Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s finest plays, and presents a man’s conscience and the effect of guilt on his mind. A dark and bloody play, Macbeth explores reality and illusion; witchcraft and the supernatural; ambition and kingship; the natural order; light and life, darkness and death; blood and dead babies.” This play featured Macbeth being entranced by three witches. They prophesied to Macbeth that he will be king of Scotland, but only if he kills the current king. Macbeth is then encouraged by his wife to kill the king, and Macbeth does so, and kills the king. Then Macbeth becomes the new king. After becoming king, Macbeth then kills even more people out of paranoia. Civil war then ensues in hope to overthrow Macbeth, but this just leads to more death. Eventually, Macbeth was defeated in battle and killed by Malcolm (son of the king of Scotland) at the Battle of Lumphanan with the assistance of the English. This play is one of Shakespeare’s best works, but what makes it so famous? According to Study.com, “Macbeth is still very relevant today as it tells us about the role of jealousy, greed and overarching ambition in the downfall of men and women. Many students read this drama to realize how self-defeating it is to be led by these emotions.” So, people read this play to figure out how to avoid the “emotions” that brought about the downfall of the characters in this play.

The phrase ‘What’s done is done’ said by Lady Macbeth, is located in the second scene of the third act. What happened, was Macbeth was feeling guilty about killing both the king and his friend, and Lady Macbeth was feeling a little guilty herself because of her role in the king’s death. She says ‘What’s done is done’ in act three, scene two, but still her guilt torments her, finally leading up to her suicidal death.

‘What’s done is done.’ Was Lady Macbeth correct in saying this? Well, I think she was correct in saying ‘What’s done is done.’ In other words, ‘What’s done cannot be undone.’ Basically she is saying, you cannot change the past, so deal with the present. She was correct in saying this, but wrong in conspiring to kill the king. She helped conspire to kill the king, and later regretted it. In fact, she felt so much guilt in conspiring to kill the king, that she eventually committed suicide. She felt so much guilt in conspiring to kill the king, that she killed herself. So basically, do not do anything now that you will later regret.

Who should have the authority to set prices, the free market or the state? According to the Dictionary, the free market is “an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses”, and the state is “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” Right now, the United States economy is run by the free market (an economic market run by supply and demand) with some government regulation. Politicians and economists are debating over how much government regulation is needed for the United States economy. 

The prices of a product is determined by supply and demand, sellers against sellers, buyers against buyers. The scarcity of one product compared to another product determines the measurement of the price of that product. Also, the person who owns the product that is being sold gets to determine how much of the product to make, how much of it to sell, and the price of the product.

Who should have the authority to set prices, the free market or the state? Why? In my opinion, I think that the free market should have the authority to set prices. Here are my reasons for why I chose the free market to have the authority to set prices. In the free market the prices are set by the business men who own the product that people are buying. These men get to chose the prices of their products according to there scarcity, and how many of  the product that they can make at a time. Plus, the economy is already run by a free market, and I think it is doing quite well. The only thing about this that I disapprove of is the government regulation that most free markets have. Some free markets do not have government regulation, but most do. If the state was in charge of pricing things, I bet that they would try to make everything similar to the same price and try to give everyone an equal share in selling it and buying it, which is not good. Basically that gets rid of competition, which makes companies try to improve in order to get the most customers. If competition goes away, then the companies have no need to improve, and nothing ever gets better. The free market is where the businessmen of different companies price their products according to the scarcity of the product, and how much of the product that they can make at a time. Basically, if people pick the prices of their own products, then that creates competition between companies which forces them to get better. Without competition, then the economy stays the same and never gets better. Therefore, the free market is better at controlling the prices of products than the state is. So, let’s just say that the economy is better off if the free market is in charge of controlling the prices of products, because if the state was in charge, I bet the economy would fall apart eventually.

(1) Mannerism and the Baroque: According to Wikipedia, “Mannerism, which may also be known as Late Renaissance, is a style in European art that emerged in the later years of the Italian High Renaissance around 1520, spreading by about 1530 and lasting until about the end of the 16th century in Italy, when the Baroque style largely replaced it.” Mannerism was taken from the Italian word maniera, which means “style”. The Baroque was, according to Wikipedia, “a style of architecture, music, dance, painting, sculpture, poetry, and other arts that flourished in Europe from the early 17th century until the 1750s.” Spectacle, illusion, movement, and biblical genre painting are the four main characteristics of the Baroque.

(2) Peter the Great: According to Wikipedia, “Peter I, most commonly known as Peter the Great, was a Russian monarch who ruled the Tsardom of Russia from 7 May [O.S. 27 April] 1682 to 1721 and subsequently the Russian Empire until his death in 1725, jointly ruling with his elder half-brother, Ivan V until 1696.” When he was young, Peter traveled the world looking for ideas to take back to Russia to help improve it, and when he became “king”, he flipped the country on its back. He completely changed the rules. For example, all men wore beards and long hair, and when Peter took over, he made it illegal to wear a beard unless you pay a fine. A lot of other rules got changed like this one. According to Library of Congress, “His major achievements include the founding of St. Petersburg in 1703, the victory against Sweden at the Battle of Poltava in 1709, and the birth of the Russian navy, Peter’s lifelong passion.“

(3) Frederick William: According to Wikipedia, “Frederick William was Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, thus ruler of Brandenburg-Prussia, from 1640 until his death in 1688. A member of the House of Hohenzollern, he is popularly known as “the Great Elector” because of his military and political achievements.” Along with other accomplishments, William completely freed the surfs, abolished hereditary leases, and settled several peasant colonists and worked to stabilize the circumstances of peasant subjects on state domains and noble estates.

According to Wikipedia, “Mercantilism is an economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. It promotes imperialism, colonialism, tariffs and subsidies on traded goods to achieve that goal.” Mercantilism is pretty much just an economic practice used to augment state power at the expense of other countries. A historic example of this would be the Sugar Act of 1764. This was a time where the colonists were made to pay higher tariffs and duties on the imports of foreign-made sugar brought to them by  other countries.

The War of the Spanish Succession lasted from 1701 to 1750. The death of childless King Charles II of Spain triggered the war. In Charles’ will, he left the throne to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of King Louis XIV of France. However, England, Holland, Prussia and Austria saw this as jeopardizing the balance of power in Europe. They formed a group called the Grand Alliance and tried to put Habsburg Archduke Charles of Austria on the throne instead of Philip. Eventually war broke out, but it eventually stopped with a negotiated end with Philip on the throne.

According to Wikipedia, “The Edict of Nantes was signed in April 1598 by King Henry IV and granted the Calvinist Protestants of France, also known as Huguenots, substantial rights in the nation, which was in essence completely Catholic. In the edict, Henry aimed primarily to promote civil unity.” The Edict of Nantes put a temporary stop to the religious wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants which had torn France apart ever since the 1560s.

The theme that is in the title is basically selling your soul to the devil, featured in the play Dr. Faustus. This play features an accomplished scholar who sells his soul to the devil, and in return he gets ‘magical powers’. According to Wikipedia, “Doctor Faustus (play) The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus, commonly referred to simply as Doctor Faustus, is an Elizabethan tragedy by Christopher Marlowe, based on German stories about the title character Faust. It was probably written in 1592 or 1593, shortly before Marlowe’s death.”

In this play, Lucifer (Satan), using a demon named Mephistophilis as a messenger, Lucifer and Faustus strike a deal. Faustus says that if Lucifer grants him twenty-four years on earth and Mephistophilis as Faustus’ servant, then Faustus, at the end of the twenty-four years, will give his soul to Lucifer and become one of those trapped in hell. This will explain it better: “Using Mephistophilis as a messenger, Faustus strikes a deal with Lucifer: that he is to be allotted twenty-four years of life on Earth, during which time he will have Mephistophilis as his personal servant, and, at the end of which, he will give his soul over to Lucifer as payment and spend the rest of time as one of the damned in hell. This deal is supposed to be cemented in the form of Faustus’ own blood. Interestingly, at first his blood congeals, leading to second thoughts by Faustus. Mephistophilis brings coals to break the wound open again, and thus Mephistophilis begins his servitude and Faustus his oath.”, taken from Faust.com. After he took this oath, he did crazy stuff for years. He became a rich dude, and lived in a big house. He lived off of whatever the demon stole, food, clothes, whatever the demon could get. When the twenty-four years was almost over, he had a big party with his friends. Then, when he went into his room to sleep, he never came out. Some people investigated, and they found blood and body parts scattered across the room. Faustus had a very tragic death.

This play also has a moral to it. This is to tell people not to go down the wrong path that Dr. Faustus took. It will only lead to death and destruction. I for one, agree completely with this.

According to Enotes.com, “The primary themes of Doctor Faustus are the relationship between knowledge and power and the consequences of attempting to attain knowledge beyond a certain extent.” Why has this theme remained popular since 1587? Well, we as humans are attracted by interest and curiosity to these kinds of things. The sound of selling your soul to the devil makes people feel scared, frightened, thrilled, and we as humans are attracted by this kind of thing. Therefore, this theme has remained popular all the way through the sixteenth century (well, maybe not popular all the way through the sixteenth century, but it was well-known). It is probably still even well-known today.

What is a state subsidy? According to Wikipedia, “A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. Although commonly extended from the government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).” So a state subsidy is basically when the government gives some form of financial aid (money) to a person or business.

What is state control? According to GEMET, state control is “The power or authority of a government to regulate or command industry, organizations, programs, initiatives and individuals.” So state control is literally just the power or authority of the state to control what GEMET said. According to Wikipedia, “State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly. There are different types of state and government media. State-controlled or state-run media are under editorial control or influence by the state or government.” The state controls what it is meant to control weather you like it, or you do not like it. According to Collins Dictionary, state control literally means “control by the government”.

Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control? Pretty much, no. You see, in order for the government to give you free money, the government must take some money away from other people, and since nobody wants the government to take their money, then the government takes their money by force. They do this through coercion. Therefore, there can be no state subsidies without state control.

Do you know what it is called when you give money away to those who really need it? That is called charity. But that is not the way the government does it. The government takes your money and gives it to a business that the government deems worthy to have the money. This is NOT the same thing as giving money away on your own. The government takes away your money and gives it to someone else. I think they do this through taxes, and taxes and charity are definitely not the same thing. According to Philanthropy, “Some of the wealthiest Americans have started to contend that paying taxes and making charitable gifts are just about the same thing. Their failure to grasp the profound difference between the two presents a very real problem for nonprofit organizations and our democracy.” I can not believe that people think that taxes and charity are the same thing! They are so different! Taxation is money being taken away from you, and charity is freely giving away money.

So, the overall answer to the question “Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control?”, is no, it pretty much impossible for that to ever happen.

What is a state subsidy? According to Wikipedia, “A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. Although commonly extended from the government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).” So a state subsidy is basically when the government gives some form of financial aid (money) to a person or business.

What is state control? According to GEMET, state control is “The power or authority of a government to regulate or command industry, organizations, programs, initiatives and individuals.” So state control is literally just the power or authority of the state to control what GEMET said. According to Wikipedia, “State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly. There are different types of state and government media. State-controlled or state-run media are under editorial control or influence by the state or government.” The state controls what it is meant to control weather you like it, or you do not like it. According to Collins Dictionary, state control literally means “control by the government”.

Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control? Pretty much, no. You see, in order for the government to give you free money, the government must take some money away from other people, and since nobody wants the government to take their money, then the government takes their money by force. They do this through coercion. Therefore, there can be no state subsidies without state control.

Do you know what it is called when you give money away to those who really need it? That is called charity. But that is not the way the government does it. The government takes your money and gives it to a business that the government deems worthy to have the money. This is NOT the same thing as giving money away on your own. The government takes away your money and gives it to someone else. I think they do this through taxes, and taxes and charity are definitely not the same thing. According to Philanthropy, “Some of the wealthiest Americans have started to contend that paying taxes and making charitable gifts are just about the same thing. Their failure to grasp the profound difference between the two presents a very real problem for nonprofit organizations and our democracy.” I can not believe that people think that taxes and charity are the same thing! They are so different! Taxation is money being taken away from you, and charity is freely giving away money.

So, the overall answer to the question “Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control?”, is no, it pretty much impossible for that to ever happen.

(1) What were Cardinal Richelieu’s primary aims? According to Wikipedia, “Armand Jean du Plessis, Duke of Richelieu, known as Cardinal Richelieu, was a French clergyman and statesman. He was also known as l’Éminence rouge, or “the Red Eminence”, a term derived from the title “Eminence” applied to cardinals and the red robes that they customarily wear.” Cardinal Richelieu had two primary goals. The first was the centralization of power in France, and the second was opposition to the Habsburg dynasty.

(2) What factors contributed to the decline of Spain? Some of the main factors that lead to the decline of Spain were expensive warfare, rebellions and revolts, and much of the economic activity was controlled by monopolies and state favorites.

(3) What is constitutionalism? According to Wikipedia, “Constitutionalism is ‘a compound of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law’.”

(4) What do you think Hobbes’ main arguments are in the excerpts you read from his Leviathan? According to StudyMode Research, “The central thesis of Leviathan is the idea that in order for human society to function without widespread conflict there is a need for totalitarian rule in the form of a Leviathan, necessitated by man’s continual state of fear in a state of nature caused by limited knowledge of the outside world and therefore the intentions of other humans.”

If the state is strong enough to do something good for you, it can also do something bad to you. This statement is true in many ways. For example, the state passes both good and bad laws. Some good ones are making it illegal to steal, they pass traffic laws which makes driving safe for people, and lots more. However, I feel like there are more bad laws than good laws. For example, the U.S.A. has just gone through, and is still going through, what I call the U.S.A. crisis of 2019. There was a huge breakout of a virus called coronavirus, or covid-19, and the U.S.A. literally shut down. New laws were passed that made the U.S.A. go crazy. Now, I live in the state of Illinois, and I hate it. The Illinois governor of my time has made new laws which made businesses shut down, you can not go someplace without having on a mask, the six-foot rule, all of these stupid laws. I mean, masks do not even help slow the spread of this virus, and where did they get the six foot rule? Out of thin air! These new laws are really hurting the state of Illinois, and three years after the outbreak (the year I wrote this essay), some of these laws are still in motion! Like some places still require the ‘if you do not wear a mask you are not allowed in’ rule. These laws have went down a bit, but they are not gone. The state is strong enough to do good.

According to Wikipedia, “Michel Eyquem, Sieur de Montaigne, also known as the Lord of Montaigne, was one of the most significant philosophers of the French Renaissance. He is known for popularizing the essay as a literary genre. His work is noted for its merging of casual anecdotes and autobiography with intellectual insight.” He was born February 28, 1533, and he died September 13, 1592. He had a French nationality. Over time he wrote several different essays in his life. According to Wikipedia, “The Essays of Michel de Montaigne are contained in three books and 107 chapters of varying length. They were originally written in Middle French and were originally published in the Kingdom of France. Montaigne’s stated design in writing, publishing and revising the Essays over the period from approximately 1570 to 1592 was to record ‘some traits of my character and of my humours.’ The Essays were first published in 1580 and cover a wide range of topics.” The essays were originally published in March 1580 and were originally written in Middle French. The book was originally titled Essais and wrote it in the literary genre essay. According to Wikipedia, “Montaigne wrote in a rather crafted rhetoric designed to intrigue and involve the reader, sometimes appearing to move in a stream-of-thought from topic to topic and at other times employing a structured style that gives more emphasis to the didactic nature of his work.” According to Britannica, “Montaigne’s Essays thus incorporate a profound skepticism concerning the human being’s dangerously inflated claims to knowledge and certainty but also assert that there is no greater achievement than the ability to accept one’s being without either contempt or illusion, in the full realization of its limitations and its richness.”

Why did Montaigne write these essays though? According to The Conversation, “Some scholars argued that Montaigne began writing his essays as a want-to-be Stoic, hardening himself against the horrors of the French civil and religious wars, and his grief at the loss of his best friend Étienne de La Boétie through dysentery.“

I am a student of the Ron Paul Curriculum, and I have had the chance to read many of Montaigne’s essays. I found many of them quite fascinating, but others I just was not into. Nevertheless, I really liked them all, and if I had the chance to read them again, I probably would, but it all depends on the essay that I would be reading. Tons of other people enjoyed the essays too, just like I did.

Some of Montaigne’s greatest essays are “Of Profit and Honesty”, “Of Repentance”, “Of Three Commerces”, “Of Diversion”, “Upon Some Verses of Virgil”, “Of Coaches”, “Of the Inconvenience of Greatness”, “Of the Art of Conference”, and many many more. There are three books to hold the one hundred and seven essays. Montaigne also edited his essays at various different points in his life. Sometimes it would be one to a few words, and other times he would edit whole passages! These essays were very influential back then and probably still are today.