Category: 11th Grade Government

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.

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.

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.

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?”

Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong? Let’s break this down real quick. OK, so lets say a man gets voted mayor of a town, and the mayor does something wrong. Do the people who elected that guy mayor last election have the right to vote someone else the next election (now, this goes with every level of government, not just a mayor)? Of course they do! Nothing is holding them back from voting for a person who is different from the original person they voted for. Now, a man can bribe people to vote for them, but the people have the right to vote for whoever they want. Now, they can vote for whoever they want, but it is the peoples choice who to vote for. Now, I hope people will make the right decision and vote for the good people, but it is their choice. And if you think that the person you voted for originally will be angry at you for not voting for him, do not be scared! It is so dumb to even think that! And if a person says that he will do something, and that helps get him into office, and he does not do it, oh well. Guess you will have to wait for the next election to pick someone else. But if a person says that he will do something and he gets elected, he better do it.

For those of you who do not understand this question, here is a quick description (FYI, this is what I think it is ’cause I do not fully understand it either), what an open meeting is is a meeting where anyone participating in the meeting can talk about any topic and for as long as they like. There are no existing rules governing taking turns, topic adherence, or other constraints on the meeting. This meeting can also be recorded by any means by anyone present.

In my opinion, my answer to this question is no. The police should not be allowed to restrict recording or taping a video in an open meeting. Let me tell you why. In many cases, an open meeting is very important to a lot of people, and they video tape it so that people can watch it later and know what happened. Also, politicians are supposed to be helpful to the people and truthful. In most cases, a politician who is not being truthful does not want the meeting to be recorded, so a politician who does not want the meeting to be recorded is not really being truthful most of the time. So really, if a politician is okay with the meeting being recorded, then the politician has full confidence they will say and do the truth, and hopefully help a lot of people. So, the police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting.

What are price controls? According to the dictionary, price controls are “a government regulation establishing a maximum price to be charged for specified goods and services, especially during periods of war or inflation.” So basically, price controls are a government regulation that tells companies at what price they need to sell their products at. They also tell people how much things they can buy in a specific period of time. This commonly happens during a war, or during inflation. According to Wikipedia, “Price controls are restrictions set in place and enforced by governments, on the prices that can be charged for goods and services in a market.” So the government enforces this, I mean, why wouldn’t they? If they did not, then nobody would follow them. According to Investopedia, “The term “price controls” refers to the legal minimum or maximum prices set for specified goods. Price controls are normally mandated by the government in the free market. They are usually implemented as a means of direct economic intervention to manage the affordability of certain goods and services, including rent, gasoline, and food. Although it may make certain goods and services more affordable, price controls can often lead to disruptions in the market, losses for producers, and a noticeable change in quality.”

What are people controls? I do not think that you need to look it up to find out what this means. Basically what it means, is that when there is people control, someone is controlling another person by way of force, threat, temptation, etc. Sometimes the people want to be controlled, sometimes they do not want to be controlled (but most of the time they do not want to be controlled, the people want to do what they want to do). People control is used by the government too. For example, the state of Illinois, U.S.A. just got out of corona-19, and while we were still in it, the government made laws that said that you cannot go to the hospital, or grocery store, or church, or anywhere, unless you wore a mask. Thanks to the government, everyone wore masks inside a building, and outside a building. That is people control.

Are price controls and people controls the same thing? I totally think so, and this is why:

Remember how I said price controls are a government regulation that tells companies at what price they need to sell their products at? And that the government also tells people how much things they can buy in a specific period of time? The government is controlling the amount of products being produced, what price the companies should sell the products for, and how much the people can buy. So if you look at it extremely closely, you will see that the government is actually controlling the people. The government is using price controls to make the people produce products at a specific amount, sell them at a specific price, and it also makes people buy a limited amount of the product that the people need. The government enforces this, so there is technically nothing we can do about it.

So basically, yes, they are the same thing.

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.