Aristotle, Joseph Schumpeter, Milton Friedman, And John Rawls

Milton Friedman and John Keynes are two world renowned economist, with many similar and contrasting views that have helped set the foundation of our economy. Friedman 's ideology on subjects such as the Monetary Policy, Gold Standard, and the Theory of the consumption function are what made him a extremely impactful economist. Keynes has made his impact on the modern day world as well in many aspects. Both of these economists have helped pave the way to a better, more efficient economy.

In attempt to give slaves equal rights to the common American man, activists argued that “thay (they; slaves) have in Common with all other men a Natural and Unaliable (inalienable) Right to that freedom which the Grat Parent of the Unavers hath Bestowed equalley on all menkind and which they have Never forfuted by any Compact or agreement.” The slaves feel violated because they look just like the average white American citizen and are not given guaranteed rights that white citizens have.

Social inequality can either be considered natural and necessary as inequalities creates incentives for individuals to work harder, or it can be considered systematic, an integral feature of social order that creates winners and losers. The former view would not consider inequality a public matter, therefore does not require governing. The latter however, would consider inequality a public issue that can only be reduced by government implementing policies to so. This essay will compare and contrast Hayek’s view of governing inequality with that of Stiglitz.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx both came from very different worlds, however they saw the world in similar ways. Both had thoughts derived from different views. Smith had a very capitalistic view on things, while Marx was socialist in many ways. They expressed their thoughts in ways that were surprisingly similar while other ideas were dissimilar. Ultimately socialism and capitalism can go hand in hand. One main idea that both works addressed was the productivity of work and the ability to accumulate property, stock and capital. They both wanted a wealthy nation but Marx believed that redistribution of wealth was the way to go. Smith believed in a free economic system that gave capitalists rights to accumulate their wealth.

They are not any free but are curtailed from reaching the freedom by a number of socio-economic and political forces. The country had created a false image of freedom that Jurgis is fooled to believe. He said “…rich or poor, a man was free” (Phelps 22). The truth is that Jurgis is out for a disappointment. The economic system exposed Jurgis to long hours overworking and low pays. He is nearly killed when he dodges gamblers. This reveals a social problem. Even though Jurgis engages in the union activities and gets to learn to read and speak English, he is faced with a powerful force of politically instigated corruption. He learns democracy but the truth is that America’s democracy had been corrupted by business and government. He is paid $2 to vote for Democrats on the Election Day (Phelps 29). He is also give a false picture of the democratic system in the country and so he remains a slave to many forces revolving around social, economic and political factors (Peer,

The only big difference that happened when they became “free” was that no one would buy or sell them, they were still treated as if they were inferior. ( Doc B ) The man in document c was talking about how the only actual reward of being free is being able to claim that you’re free.

The definition of freedom depends entirely on how the phrase “freedom from…” ends. Perhaps a most straightforward understanding of freedom is the laissez-faire emphasis on limiting the power of government to interfere in economic and social matters. In this state of absolute freedom, however, inequalities exist between people, so that freedom from a controlling government does not imply individuals’ freedom of contract, movement, legal protection, equal rights through citizenship, or political voice. In light of the persistence of slavery in the US through the 19th century, freedom as an individual’s legal status separated people who could be citizens from people who were lifelong slaves. Even among legally free people, economic

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

The right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive. It will always be equally foolish for a man to say to a man or to a people: ‘I make with you a convention wholly at your expense and wholly to my advantage; I shall keep it as long as I like, and you will keep it as long as I like’ (Rousseau 3).

Also, his ideas on how a democracy is susceptible to being used by groups to further their own agendas are again correct. However, when he tries to explain every social degeneration as the result of the onset of democratic republicanism and then assume that all problems will be fixed by switching to an alternative social system called “natural order” his theory breaks down.

Income inequality is a phenomenon that is undeniably real in our current world, and more specifically, the present United States. Canon describes how the gap between the elite and the poor has been consistently growing for many years and continues to widen (189). Whether the differences between the top and the bottom are a threat to current society is another story. Does income inequality undermine a democracy? Ray Williams argues that societies are strongest when they have a higher rate of equality while George Will challenges that inequality is the very basis of what make democratic processes. A. Barton Hinkle takes a Libertarian approach to the idea that inequality is threatening to democracy and how it can be fixed. Some threats that each article addressed were economic impacts, civility, and fairness. Overall, there is a definite need to evaluate whether the United States democracy is being threatened due to the continuous rise of the elites and the fall of the working class.

The general understanding of democracy is that it is a state of leadership where citizens of a country participate equally either directly or by representative individuals in the establishment of laws, which run the society. However, like many other forms of leadership, democracy has its cons and may not give the citizens the necessary freedoms that they think they have. Different philosophers have different insights on democracy in terms of concepts such as liberty, which they embraced. This paper will look at Benjamin Barber and Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of democracy contrasting their definition in terms of citizenship, obligation, rights and duties of each individual in the society declaring whose idea of democracy creates a compelling vision (Terchek & Conte, 2001).

The natural slaves, however, cannot achieve any such telos due to their natural impairment and inferiority to the citizen. Their natural purpose in life is to serve the ruler and provide for them, since the natural slave lacks such capabilities as reason, "For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another - which is also why he belongs to another - and who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it" (1254b16-23). Usually, as Aristotle points out, natural slaves bread other natural slaves, although, sometimes superiors are known to have natural slaves as well. However, he struggles to determine whether the natural slave is in fact completely rationally impaired and upon what reasons he should be enslaved. Thus, this creates difficulties when trying to differentiate who should be enslaved, why and how to distinguish between a natural slave and a natural

Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between the highest and the lowest income earners in an economy (Tullock 13). Income inequality is sometimes considered appropriate in societies since it acts as an incentive in free market economies, whereby in the absence of inequality, elements of economic stagnation and lack of enterprise would emerge. Conversely, income inequality is criticized on the basis of introducing contributing towards the development of key problems in the society, including progression of poverty levels. This paper seeks to explore the concept of income redistribution and its key pros and cons.

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a