Trade has never ruined anyone. “Prices and other market instruments regulate the distribution of rare resources in society, thereby limiting the desires of participants, coordinating their actions” “A law cannot be a law if behind it

(B. Franklin)

In the statement I have chosen, the author examines the essence of international trade and its role and significance for development national economy. Nowadays, this question is more relevant than ever. It is now that integration processes in all spheres have become especially clear, including globalization that has affected the economic subsystem. The scale of world trade has increased significantly, since no country can provide itself with all the necessary goods.

American politician Benjamin Fracklin spoke about international trade like this:“Trade has never ruined a single nation.”In other words, he believes that trade has mostly positive consequences and believes that international trade aims to promote economic development national economy and enrichment of the nation. I partially share the author’s opinion and also believe that competent international trade can develop and strengthen the economic position of an individual state, and also contributes to the development of the world market. However, history knows cases when illiterate international exchange relations led, on the contrary, to a drop in the economic level of the country, a partial loss of independence, a decrease in the competitiveness of domestic producers, and so on.

Let's turn to theoretical arguments. In modern social sciences, it is customary to define international trade as the sphere of international commodity-money relations, which is a set of foreign trade all countries of the world. International trade is characterized by two counter flows: imports and exports. Import is the import of goods from abroad, and export on the contrary, their export abroad for the purpose of sale.

The scope of international trade is the world market, which is a set of interconnected and interacting national markets of individual states participating in the international division of labor, international trade and other forms of economic relations.

In this context, it is impossible not to dwell in more detail on such a concept as the international division of labor. Modern social scientists and economists define it as the sustainable production of goods and services in individual countries in excess of the country’s internal needs, based on international market. That is, it consists of focusing on the advantages of each country, climatic or territorial, and using them in the global economy.

There are two types of policies that a state can adhere to in the world market regarding international trade: the policy of “free trade” (free trade) and the policy of protectionism. “Free trade” implies the free import and export of goods into and from a country, its active and unhindered participation in international trade, and market openness. Undoubtedly, such a policy has a lot positive qualities: it strengthens the position of the state in the world market, provides the consumer with greater freedom of choice, and so on. However, if priorities are set incorrectly, free trade policies can be harmful. For example, it may have a detrimental effect on the country’s domestic market: imported producers may displace domestic ones, the country’s economy may not be able to cope with the volume of necessary exports, and so on.

In this case, countries can choose a policy of protectionism, which consists of a system of import restrictions when highcustoms duties, the import of certain products is prohibited, and other measures are used to prevent foreign products from competing with local ones. Protectionist policies encourage the development of domestic production that can replace imported goods.

In addition to theoretical arguments, actual examples can also be given. A striking example of the dangers hidden in the policy of “free trade” is the economic state of the world in the 40s XIX century. Then the countries of Western Europe and the United States were forced to pursue a policy of “protective” protectionism, saving their economies and national industries from the more developed Great Britain, which was already practicing a “free trade” policy.

However, the policy of “free trade” undoubtedly has a lot of advantages. So, January 1 1995 with the aim of liberalization international trade and regulation of trade and political relations of member states, the World Trade Organization(WTO), which Russia joined in 2012. WTO member countries have more advanced economic systems and are better valued on the world market, as they consciously open their markets.

But still, opponents of free trade cite not only economic, but also moral arguments in defense of their point of view. In this case, international trade does not ruin peoples from the point of view of the country's economy, but affects deeper processes, ruining peoples, perhaps with more dangerous consequences. These consequences include the phenomenon called the “race to the bottom”, which consists of the progressive lifting of restrictions and lowering of standards government regulation as a result of international or interregional competition, Tax reduction, social guarantees, trade restrictions and government regulation of business leads to exacerbation poverty . And, therefore, aggravates the North-South problem. Yes, at the end 19th century , legislation onjoint stock companiesEurope has liberalized rapidly. Different countries adopted increasingly liberal laws to keep local businesses competitive.

You can also give an example from personal experience. From a consumer point of view, I can say that free international trade brings undeniable benefits. Thus, thanks to this phenomenon, a greater variety of goods is presented on the market; the production of some of them is simply impossible in our country. Thus, through international trade, a dialogue of cultures takes place. For example, it is unlikely that we would have a clear understanding of Mexican food if it could not be purchased at the nearest supermarket.

Thus, the integration of economies is a reality modern world. No country can afford to close down. You need to diversify your benefits and understand what you can offer to the global market. This will reduce risks and expand benefits internationally.

38. “Trade has never ruined a single nation.” (B. Franklin)

The author wanted to say that engaging in trading activities is useful for society, this can lead to its prosperity. I think we have to agree with this. Trade has evolved since the development public relations.
Some sell, others buy. Trade also took place when there were no coins. Money could be animal skins, precious metals, etc.
Trade is the most common form of exchange in which ownership of a good (good, service) is transferred from one to another through money. Trade can serve as a unifying factor for a country and even the world. Let's take for example Ancient Rus'. Trade truly united
Rus. Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. IN
Carts with grain from the Dnieper region were coming to Novgorod; Salt was brought from Volyn to all lands; from north to south - furs, fish. Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone products to other countries. Foreign goods arrived from other countries: fabrics, weapons, precious stones, jewelry, church utensils, wine. Thus, thanks to trade, prosperity and development of states occurred.
I believe that well-developed relations in a country are a sign of a developed economic life of the country. Therefore, the President of Chuvashia N.V. Fedorov often says: To establish yourself well, you need to enter the European market. The concept of “market” implies the sphere of exchange of goods for money and money for goods, interaction of producers and consumers on a regional, national or global scale. Chuvashia is already trying to enter the European market.
By organizing various exhibitions, we attract various investors who enter into agreements to purchase our national products. Thus, we receive money, and they receive goods. Their money goes to the production of new goods, and ours the goods are coming to develop their economy.
Therefore, I agree with the statement that trade has not yet ruined a single nation.
39. “Not to be greedy is already wealth, not to be wasteful is income.”
(M. Montaigne)
In my opinion, this statement is akin to the saying: “It is not the one who has a lot of money who is rich, but the one who has fewer needs.” What are these statements about, what is their essence? Each person determines for himself whether he is rich or not, although sometimes his assessment is based on comparison with other people.
A greedy person always lacks something. A very striking example of this can be found in Gogol’s “ Dead souls", where Plyushkin doesn’t have enough of everything. His chests are full of wealth, and he dresses and eats like a beggar. IN modern life everything is the same, someone doesn’t have enough money for a two-level apartment, and he “considers himself poor, and someone considers himself rich, because... he has bread on his table every day. However, there is another side to this. Wealth is not only the absence of greed, but also frugality, rationalism and pragmatism.
Let us analyze the second half of M. Montaigne’s phrase “not to be wasteful is income.”

Income is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Expenditures of the population are called consumption. A rational consumer should be guided rational organization your life, effective production activities, consumption optimization. If not to be rational consumer, a situation may arise that expenses will exceed income.
And here it depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when rich nobles brought their fortunes to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their labor, became prosperous. Or another example: Ford began his career with the first car. If he had spent the money he received only on current needs, he would never have been able to found a car company. The investment of initial capital in the business became the basis of his wealth. Therefore, I agree with M. Montaigne’s statement.
40. “Competition is the only method of mutual coordination of our
individual
actions
without
coercion
or
arbitrary
interference from the authorities." (F. Hayek)
Since this statement is given in the “economics” section, competition should be understood as the economic rivalry of participants economic activity in the struggle to achieve better results. It seems to me that the author’s definition of competition accurately defines its essence. Competition is a regulator of not only economic, but also political, cultural, and interpersonal relations.
Competition performs the function of mutual coordination of our actions without interference from authorities: people compete for better results, greater profits, Better conditions life. In the course of competition, they objectively change the objects around them, their relationships, adapt to each other, strive to keep up with others, i.e. They carry out mutual coordination of actions. For example, some product is presented in excess on the market, i.e.
The quantity supplied is greater than the quantity demanded. This is where the law of competition comes into play: by increasing efficiency, a manufacturer can reduce production costs, reduce the cost of goods, improve their quality and, ultimately, reduce prices for their goods. This will “spur” other manufacturers to respond. A decrease in price will lead to an increase in the quantity demanded for this product. Thus, competition can, without any government intervention, regulate supply and demand and coordinate the actions of various producers. Other examples of competition not related to economics can be cited: competition musical groups, presidential elections, entrance exams, etc. Thus, competition is a universal regulator of the entire life of society.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
41. “The party is organized public opinion.” (B. Disraeli)
One cannot but agree with the opinion of the 19th century English politician B.
Disraeli. Parties represent public opinion in all its diversity in politics. According to the law of the Russian Federation “On Political Parties”, a party is defined as an association that has a stable structure and permanent nature of activity, expresses the political will of its members and supporters and sets the main objectives of participation in determining the political course of the country, the formation of government bodies and administration, as well as the implementation of authorities through their representatives. Parties represent the interests of various segments of the population in politics. Thus, the Communist Party represents the interests of low-income citizens and advocates for the expansion of social policy and equation of states. The Union of Right Forces (SPS), on the contrary, represents the interests of entrepreneurs and wealthy citizens and defends freedom of enterprise and business interests. The parties have organizational structure, which allows them to prepare for elections, develop their plans for the reconstruction of society, and protect the interests of their supporters when preparing bills in parliament. Political socialization of citizens occurs through parties: all citizens cannot be deputies, but can participate in the work of one or another party and, through it, inform government agencies your opinion on this or that issue. The Russian Federation now has a multi-party system, which corresponds to the diversity of political interests of Russian society. For example, the United
Russia supported the monetization of benefits, representing the interests of the working population, while the communists opposed the reform, representing the interests of pensioners. Therefore, I agree with Disraeli: “a party is organized public opinion.”
42. “It is not true that politics is the art of the possible. Policy -
it is a choice between disastrous and unpleasant.” (John Galbraith)
In saying this, D. Galbraith was probably recalling the history of the origin of the concept of “politics”. Politics in ancient times meant the art of governing.
Therefore, the better the activity of a politician, the more skillful his management was considered. In ancient times, everything seemed to depend on the politician, on his art, skill, it seemed that a skillful politician could work miracles, could beautifully solve all complex problems. However, antiquity is always shrouded in legends and secrets. Modern life seems much more complicated.
Now politics is not only the art of management, it is the activity of large groups, states, parties aimed at seizing power or retaining it. I
I agree that politics is a choice between disastrous and unpleasant. How often do politicians have to make this choice? Sometimes, indeed, it is difficult to deceive the expectations of your voters and people, but it is sometimes necessary. From history we recall a fact related to the French President Charles de

Golem. In his election program, he claimed that he would not give Algeria independence (at that time, “Algeria was a French colony”), but, having become president of France, he gave Algeria freedom. Of course, on the one hand, he deceived his citizens, this is unpleasant, but on the other hand ", the war for Algeria could bring a lot of problems to France. And de Gaulle's choice was correct. From the history of our state, we know Kutuzov's decision to leave Moscow, but keep the army, in order to then defeat Napoleon's invaders. And again, this was the right decision, although many were dissatisfied with him History has proven this, and we can only agree with the statement of John Galbraith.
JURISPRUDENCE
43. “Let the world perish, but the law must be observed.” (saying
Roman law)
This statement is so paradoxical that it is difficult to both agree and disagree with it completely. On the one hand, I agree that the law must be respected. After all, laws are normative legal acts adopted in a special order and possessing the highest legal force, expressing the state will on key issues of public life. Laws regulate the most important social relations, and violation of laws can lead to the death of society. Therefore, laws have the highest legal force. No one has the right to repeal or change a law except the body that issued it. Roman jurists also said, “The law is harsh, but it must be observed.” However, from the standpoint of humanism, one cannot agree that the world must collapse due to formal compliance with the law. Let's imagine a situation where a fire started at a secret military facility. By law, only people with special passes have access to the facility. So why not let the firefighters in?
It is not without reason that some human rights activists say that law is “legalized justice” and the law cannot violate a person’s natural gifts from birth, freedom. In my opinion, it is necessary to observe a certain compromise: in normal circumstances the law cannot be broken, but in a state of emergency, if we are talking about the destruction of the world, it is better for the law to perish.
If the understanding of justice in society changes, then the law must change. Thus, according to the famous Stalinist law “On Spikelets,” mothers with many children, whose husbands died in the war, went to prison for digging up a bucket of frozen potatoes in a collective farm field. To avoid such a choice: maintaining peace or observing the law, fair laws are needed, thought out by all branches of government.
44. “Who, having the opportunity to prevent a crime, does not
this, he helps him.” (Seneca)
I completely agree with the statement of the Roman philosopher. Indeed, a person who can prevent and avoid a crime and does not do so becomes its accomplice, accomplice. Let's remember what a crime is.
This is a socially dangerous act encroaching on law and order, provided for

Criminal Code. The hallmarks of a crime are illegality, special social danger, guilt, and punishability. Under the expression
“socially dangerous act” is understood as a dangerous manifestation of deviant behavior that causes the greatest damage to society. However, an act refers not only to action, but also to inaction. For example, a person who robbed an apartment is certainly a criminal, but his friend, who knew about the robber’s intentions and did not try to stop him or report it to the police, can also be called a criminal. Or let’s take a car enthusiast whose car’s brakes are acting up. Knowing this, he drives onto the highway and, losing control, runs into a passerby. He is undoubtedly a criminal, although technical expertise may find him innocent. In order for there to be fewer crimes, a high level of legal culture of all citizens is necessary. After all, legal culture is not only knowledge of the laws and their strict observance, but also the desire to actively promote law and order and prevent crimes. Therefore, every citizen, knowing about an impending crime, is obliged to try to prevent it or report it to law enforcement agencies.
45. “By sparing criminals, they harm honest people” (Seneca)
The outstanding philosopher Seneca lived during the Roman Empire. What did he mean by this phrase? By not punishing criminals at all, or by not punishing them properly, we are harming honest, law-abiding citizens. And although many centuries have passed since then, Seneca’s words remain relevant. And I agree with his opinion, the essence of the crime remains the same. Who are the criminals? These are people who committed a crime.
According to the definition, a crime is a public act that encroaches on law and order, as provided for in the criminal code. The features of the crime are the illegality of the act, guilt, special social danger, and strict punishability. If the first two characteristics are true for any offense, then the last two are true for a crime. This suggests that if an offense can affect a person indirectly, then people face crime directly. Crimes can be classified: against the individual, against sexual integrity, against family and minors, in the economic sphere, planning and waging war, illegal production, storage and sale of narcotic drugs and others. Of course, all this harms people. Here we can focus on two aspects. Firstly, if the criminal is not punished, then criminal acts may be repeated. This is even the theme for films. Among the latest is the series “Deadly Force,” where a mother-judge covers for her son, who committed a robbery and killed two policemen. Their acquittal by the court prompted him to commit new crimes.
The second aspect of the problem is the victims. Seeing that the court cannot punish, many take the path of lynching. Here again we can remember

another Russian TV series “Kamenskaya”, where juvenile delinquents killed only son in a military family. After this, the mother lost her mind, and the father began to arrange the death of the perpetrators.
Are these examples, in your opinion, isolated?! Unfortunately, no. Open any newspaper and you will come across similar information on the “Crime” page.
Therefore, despite the passage of centuries, I consider Seneca’s words to be relevant and topical today.

He believes that trade is the path to the well-being of the state. After all, if a country has a sufficient quantity of certain goods or minerals, then this is a profitable opportunity to sell them to another state at the most reasonable price and earn money for the internal needs of the state.

I agree with the author’s statement, because I believe that participation in international trade is a guarantee successful development national and global economy as a whole. After all, competition among states leads to an improvement in the quality of goods and services produced, strengthening the economic position of individual states, and therefore to an increase in the well-being of society.

The world economy is a set of national economic systems interconnected by economic relations. And international trade is the exchange of economic benefits between different states. It has a number of positive aspects: overcoming the limited national resource base, expanding the domestic market, obtaining additional income and deepening specialization of production.

Russia mainly exports hydrocarbon raw materials (oil, gas and coal), machinery and various equipment. Exports in our country amount to 100 muzzles. per year, of which 85% are from natural resources. It is the sale of raw materials that replenishes the state treasury and ensures a normal standard of living for the population.

And in Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” one of the main characters, Stolz, is one of the shareholders and managing directors of a company that exports goods from Russia to Europe. This business turns out to be quite profitable and allows the hero to purchase a house.

Thus, trade is effective method making a profit, both for individuals, but also for entire countries. That is why the modern world community is particularly interested in expanding and strengthening the global market.

Associated with this file 51 file(s). Among them: and another 41 file(s).
Show all linked files

38. “Trade has never ruined a single nation.” (B. Franklin)

The author wanted to say that engaging in trading activities is useful for society, this can lead to its prosperity. I think we have to agree with this. Trade has evolved since the development of social relations.
Some sell, others buy. Trade also took place when there were no coins. Money could be animal skins, precious metals, etc.
Trade is the most common form of exchange in which ownership of a good (good, service) is transferred from one to another through money. Trade can serve as a unifying factor for a country and even the world. Let's take, for example, Ancient Rus'. Trade truly united
Rus. Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. IN
Carts with grain from the Dnieper region were coming to Novgorod; Salt was brought from Volyn to all lands; from north to south - furs, fish. Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone products to other countries. Foreign goods arrived from other countries: fabrics, weapons, precious stones, jewelry, church utensils, wine. Thus, thanks to trade, prosperity and development of states occurred.
I believe that well-developed relations in a country are a sign of a developed economic life of the country. Therefore, the President of Chuvashia N.V. Fedorov often says: To establish yourself well, you need to enter the European market. The concept of “market” implies the sphere of exchange of goods for money and money for goods, interaction of producers and consumers on a regional, national or global scale. Chuvashia is already trying to enter the European market.
By organizing various exhibitions, we attract various investors who enter into agreements to purchase our national products. Thus, we receive money, and they receive goods. Their money goes to the production of new goods, and our goods go to develop their economy.
Therefore, I agree with the statement that trade has not yet ruined a single nation.
39. “Not to be greedy is already wealth, not to be wasteful is income.”
(M. Montaigne)
In my opinion, this statement is akin to the saying: “It is not the one who has a lot of money who is rich, but the one who has fewer needs.” What are these statements about, what is their essence? Each person determines for himself whether he is rich or not, although sometimes his assessment is based on comparison with other people.
A greedy person always lacks something. A very striking example of this can be found in Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” where Plyushkin doesn’t have enough of everything. His chests are full of wealth, and he dresses and eats like a beggar. In modern life, everything is the same, someone doesn’t have enough money for a two-level apartment, and he “considers himself poor, and someone considers himself rich, because... he has bread on his table every day. However, there is another side to this. Wealth is not only the absence of greed, but also frugality, rationalism and pragmatism.
Let us analyze the second half of M. Montaigne’s phrase “not to be wasteful is income.”

Income is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Expenditures of the population are called consumption. A rational consumer must be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, and optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, a situation may arise where expenses will exceed income.
And here it depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when rich nobles brought their fortunes to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their labor, became prosperous. Or another example: Ford began his career with the first car. If he had spent the money he received only on current needs, he would never have been able to found a car company. The investment of initial capital in the business became the basis of his wealth. Therefore, I agree with M. Montaigne’s statement.
40. “Competition is the only method of mutual coordination of our
individual
actions
without
coercion
or
arbitrary
interference from the authorities." (F. Hayek)
Since this statement is given in the “economics” section, competition should be understood as the economic rivalry of participants in economic activities in the struggle to achieve better results. It seems to me that the author’s definition of competition accurately defines its essence. Competition is a regulator of not only economic, but also political, cultural, and interpersonal relations.
Competition performs the function of mutual coordination of our actions without interference from authorities: people compete for better results, greater profits, better living conditions. In the course of competition, they objectively change the objects around them, their relationships, adapt to each other, strive to keep up with others, i.e. They carry out mutual coordination of actions. For example, some product is presented in excess on the market, i.e.
The quantity supplied is greater than the quantity demanded. This is where the law of competition comes into play: by increasing efficiency, a manufacturer can reduce production costs, reduce the cost of goods, improve their quality and, ultimately, reduce prices for their goods. This will “spur” other manufacturers to respond. A decrease in price will lead to an increase in the quantity demanded for this product. Thus, competition can, without any government intervention, regulate supply and demand and coordinate the actions of various producers. You can give other examples of competition that are not related to economics: a competition of musical groups, presidential elections, entrance exams, etc. Thus, competition is a universal regulator of the entire life of society.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
41. “The party is organized public opinion.” (B. Disraeli)
One cannot but agree with the opinion of the 19th century English politician B.
Disraeli. Parties represent public opinion in all its diversity in politics. According to the law of the Russian Federation “On Political Parties”, a party is defined as an association that has a stable structure and permanent nature of activity, expresses the political will of its members and supporters and sets the main objectives of participation in determining the political course of the country, the formation of government bodies and administration, as well as the implementation of authorities through their representatives. Parties represent the interests of various segments of the population in politics. Thus, the Communist Party represents the interests of low-income citizens and advocates for the expansion of social policy and equalization of conditions. The Union of Right Forces (SPS), on the contrary, represents the interests of entrepreneurs and wealthy citizens and defends freedom of enterprise and business interests. Parties have an organizational structure that allows them to prepare for elections, develop their plans for the reconstruction of society, and protect the interests of their supporters when preparing bills in parliament. Through parties, the political socialization of citizens occurs: all citizens cannot be deputies, but they can participate in the work of one or another party and, through it, convey their opinion on this or that issue to government bodies. The Russian Federation now has a multi-party system, which corresponds to the diversity of political interests of Russian society. For example, the United
Russia supported the monetization of benefits, representing the interests of the working population, while the communists opposed the reform, representing the interests of pensioners. Therefore, I agree with Disraeli: “a party is organized public opinion.”
42. “It is not true that politics is the art of the possible. Policy -
it is a choice between disastrous and unpleasant.” (John Galbraith)
In saying this, D. Galbraith was probably recalling the history of the origin of the concept of “politics”. Politics in ancient times meant the art of governing.
Therefore, the better the activity of a politician, the more skillful his management was considered. In ancient times, everything seemed to depend on the politician, on his art, skill, it seemed that a skillful politician could work miracles, could beautifully solve all complex problems. However, antiquity is always shrouded in legends and secrets. Modern life seems much more complicated.
Now politics is not only the art of management, it is the activity of large groups, states, parties aimed at seizing power or retaining it. I
I agree that politics is a choice between disastrous and unpleasant. How often do politicians have to make this choice? Sometimes, indeed, it is difficult to deceive the expectations of your voters and people, but it is sometimes necessary. From history we recall a fact related to the French President Charles de

Golem. In his election program, he claimed that he would not give Algeria independence (at that time, “Algeria was a French colony”), but, having become president of France, he gave Algeria freedom. Of course, on the one hand, he deceived his citizens, this is unpleasant, but on the other hand ", the war for Algeria could bring a lot of problems to France. And de Gaulle's choice was correct. From the history of our state, we know Kutuzov's decision to leave Moscow, but keep the army, in order to then defeat Napoleon's invaders. And again, this was the right decision, although many were dissatisfied with him History has proven this, and we can only agree with the statement of John Galbraith.
JURISPRUDENCE
43. “Let the world perish, but the law must be observed.” (saying
Roman law)
This statement is so paradoxical that it is difficult to both agree and disagree with it completely. On the one hand, I agree that the law must be respected. After all, laws are normative legal acts adopted in a special order and possessing the highest legal force, expressing the state will on key issues of public life. Laws regulate the most important social relations, and violation of laws can lead to the death of society. Therefore, laws have the highest legal force. No one has the right to repeal or change a law except the body that issued it. Roman jurists also said, “The law is harsh, but it must be observed.” However, from the standpoint of humanism, one cannot agree that the world must collapse due to formal compliance with the law. Let's imagine a situation where a fire started at a secret military facility. By law, only people with special passes have access to the facility. So why not let the firefighters in?
It is not without reason that some human rights activists say that law is “legalized justice” and the law cannot violate a person’s natural gifts from birth, freedom. In my opinion, it is necessary to observe a certain compromise: in normal circumstances the law cannot be broken, but in a state of emergency, if we are talking about the destruction of the world, it is better for the law to perish.
If the understanding of justice in society changes, then the law must change. Thus, according to the famous Stalinist law “On Spikelets,” mothers with many children, whose husbands died in the war, went to prison for digging up a bucket of frozen potatoes in a collective farm field. To avoid such a choice: fair laws, thought out by all branches of government, are needed.
44. “Who, having the opportunity to prevent a crime, does not
this, he helps him.” (Seneca)
I completely agree with the statement of the Roman philosopher. Indeed, a person who can prevent and avoid a crime and does not do so becomes its accomplice, accomplice. Let's remember what a crime is.
This is a socially dangerous act encroaching on law and order, provided for

another Russian series “Kamenskaya”, where juvenile criminals killed the only son in a military family. After this, the mother lost her mind, and the father began to arrange the death of the perpetrators.
Are these examples, in your opinion, isolated?! Unfortunately, no. Open any newspaper and you will come across similar information on the “Crime” page.
Therefore, despite the passage of centuries, I consider Seneca’s words to be relevant and topical today.

“Trade has never ruined a single nation.” (B. Franklin)
The author wanted to say that engaging in trading activities is useful for society, this can lead to its prosperity. I think we have to agree with this. Trade has evolved since the development of social relations. Some sell, others buy. Trade also took place when there were no coins. Money could be animal skins, precious metals, etc. Trade -
This is the most common form of exchange in which ownership of a good (good, service) is transferred from one to another through money. Trade can serve as a unifying factor for a country and even the world. Let's take, for example, Ancient Rus'. Trade truly united Rus'. Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. Carts with grain from the Dnieper region went to Novgorod; Salt was brought from Volyn to all lands; from North to South
- fur, fish. Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone products to other countries. Foreign goods arrived from other countries: fabrics, weapons, precious stones, jewelry, church utensils, wine. Thus, thanks to trade, prosperity and development of states occurred.
I believe that well-developed relations in the country
- a sign of the developed economic life of the country. Therefore the president
Chuvashia N.V. Fedorov often says: To establish yourself well, you need to enter the European market. Concept
“market” implies the sphere of exchange of goods for money and money for goods, interaction of producers and consumers on a regional, national and global scale. Chuvashia is already trying to enter the European market.
By organizing various exhibitions, we attract various investors who enter into agreements to purchase our national products. Thus, we receive money, and they receive goods. Their money goes to the production of new goods, and our goods go to develop their economy.
Therefore, I agree with the statement that trade has not yet ruined a single nation.

"Don't be greedy
-

-
income". (M. Montaigne)

- something is missing. A very striking example of this can be found in Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” where Plyushkin doesn’t have enough of everything. His chests are full of wealth, and he dresses and eats like a beggar. In modern life everything is the same, to whom

-

- income". Income
- this is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Expenditures of the population are called consumption.
A rational consumer must be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, and optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, a situation may arise where expenses will exceed income. And here it depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when rich nobles brought their fortunes to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their labor, became prosperous. Or another example: Ford began his career with the first car. If he had spent the money received only on current needs, he would never have been able to found a car company. The investment of initial capital in the business became the basis of his wealth. Therefore, I agree with M. Montaigne’s statement.
"Competition
-
the only method of mutual coordination of our individual actions without coercion
or arbitrary interference by the authorities." (F. Hayek)
Since this statement is given in the “economics” section, competition should be understood as the economic rivalry of participants in economic activities in the struggle to achieve better results. It seems to me that the author’s definition of competition accurately defines its essence. Competition is a regulator of not only economic, but also political, cultural, and interpersonal relations. Competition carries out the function of mutual coordination of our actions without interference from the authorities: people compete for better results, greater profits, better living conditions. In the course of competition, they objectively change the objects around them, their relationships, adapt to each other, strive to keep up with others, i.e. They carry out mutual coordination of actions. For example, in what market
- then the product is presented in excess, i.e. the amount of supply is greater than the amount of demand. This is where the law of competition comes into play: by increasing efficiency, a manufacturer can reduce production costs, reduce the cost of goods, improve their quality and, ultimately, reduce prices for their goods. This will “spur” other manufacturers to respond. A decrease in price will lead to an increase in the quantity demanded for this product. Thus, competition can, without any government intervention, regulate supply and demand and coordinate the actions of various producers. Other examples of competition that are not related to economics can be cited: a music group competition, presidential elections, entrance exams, etc. Thus, competition is
a universal regulator of the entire life of society.
"All happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy
-
to his own" by L. Tolstoy.
The most important social the institution and basic unit of society is the family
- a community of people based on a single family activity, marital ties and consanguinity. Of course, each of us has our own ideas about ideal families. L. Tolstoy also has his own position. his statement: “all happy families are alike, every unhappy family is unhappy according to
- to your own" means: we can easily name the signs of a happy family, because they are universal (in a good family there is harmony, mutual understanding, children are educated and respect their elders, etc.), but at the same time it is impossible to identify the reasons for the unhappiness of all unhappy ones families, since the causes of misfortune are always different.
I cannot but agree with the opinion of L. Tolstoy. To argue my point of view, I would like to name the main functions of the family: 1) socially
- status, 2) leisure 3) reproductive 4) education and socialization of children 5) household.
- economic
6) emotional. In a happy family, all these functions are performed: children are born (reproductive), who receive a good upbringing from their parents (social and parenting), and they all spend weekends together, celebrate holidays (leisure), rejoice at successes and empathize with the failures of loved ones (emotional). .), while spouses and children do not forget to help each other with housework (household.
- economical). In such a family, both children and parents are undoubtedly happy.
But let's imagine unhappy families. In one, for example, the wife does all the housework, and the husband does not help her. Hoz
- economical the function of the family is not fulfilled by one of the spouses, and consequently, discontent grows and conflicts arise. The family may fall apart. In another
- emotions are not realized
- psychological family function. How often can you hear that there is no mutual understanding in the family (a common situation: the father comes home late from work and hardly sees his children, does not know how they are doing, etc. Or the wife does not support her husband in a difficult situation) And how many films and programs dedicated to difficult teenagers that even their parents cannot cope with! These are families where the function of raising and socializing children is not fulfilled. And finally, there are families where not only what
- sometimes one, but also two, three or more functions! For example, these are families of alcoholics, which any local police officer can tell you about and of which, unfortunately, there are quite a lot now.
So, reflecting on this urgent problem, I come to the conclusion: in happy families all the functions of the family are realized, and that is why they are similar, and in unhappy families
- different functions are not performed, therefore “every unhappy family is unhappy in
- to his own."

"
There are 2 peaceful forms of violence: law and decency" by I. Goethe.
What is violence? Usually, when we talk about violence, we mean cruelty. But in Goethe’s statement the word violence has a different meaning: prohibition, restriction of freedom. So the meaning of this statement is that society can control people's behavior peacefully, using laws and public morals.
I cannot but agree with the German writer and philosopher Goethe. There is a mechanism of social control in society
- a set of means that is used by society for its preservation and normal functioning. Social control can be exercised politically
- legal system, public morality, and professional system and a system of informal requirements. And all this
- peaceful forms of regulation of human behavior: they are carried out with the help of social sanctions, that is, rewards and punishments that promote compliance with social norms.
The following example can serve as an argument. Let's say a person wants to steal something
- either or commit murder.
However, no matter how strong his desire for delinquent behavior may be, society forbids him to do this: in
- firstly, the law provides for punishment for committing an unlawful act, in
- secondly, public morality will most likely condemn him. Or a person wants to break the trees planted in the park, pick flowers, but he, knowing that society will apply formal (they will bring administrative responsibility) and informal (friends will stop communicating with him, colleagues will stop greeting him, etc.) to him for this. n.) negative social sanctions, will not commit such an act.
So, concluding the discussion on this urgent problem, I come to the conclusion that, although social sanctions are likened to violence (after all, they do not limit human freedom), it is still a peaceful way of violence, since it is aimed at the development of society and the preservation of order in it .
And one more question. B. Shaw’s statement is given: “a healthy nation is just as unaware of its nationality as a healthy person
- your spine"
Is the following argument suitable: everyone knows how much grief Nazi Germany brought to the world when, in the forties of the 20th century, Hitler and his allies, promoting the ideas of nationalism. superiority, unleashed the Second world war. Is it possible to talk about the health of a nation if it carries out national violence against other ethnic groups?
- suppresses and belittles them?
Obviously, the feeling of belonging to a nation gives rise to hatred and enmity towards other nations, becoming the basis for conflicts and wars. Such a nation cannot be considered healthy.
And the conclusion: of course, patriotism should be inherent in people, but it is bad if it develops into nationalism and chauvinism.
It is necessary to strive for tolerance in relation to national cultures, customs and traditions of peoples, to free ourselves from prejudices about exclusively
“A human child at the moment of birth is not a person, but only a candidate for a person.” (A. Pieron)
Human
- this is the highest level of living organisms on Earth, a subject of social
- historical activity and culture, in which the biological and social principles are closely interconnected. Newborn from a biological point of view
- a person, and from a social point of view
- only a human candidate. Therefore, I believe that A. Pieron is right.
The social studies textbook emphasizes the differences between the concepts of “individual” and “personality.” Both terms characterize a person, but how? An individual is a specific person, as a holistic, unique representative of the human race with his unique psychophysiological traits (age, gender, temperament, level of abilities, characteristics of health and appearance, etc.). Personality
is a human individual who is a subject social activities, possessing a set of socially significant features, properties and qualities that he realizes in public life. An individual becomes a person through the process of socialization, which includes education, training, and communication with other people. Man at the moment of birth
is an individual, but not yet a personality. Only communication with other people allows a child to learn to speak, think logically, and acquire cultural skills. Having mastered the experience of humanity, having found his place in society, his recognition, he will become a man in the full sense of the word -
a unique personality, individuality.
As arguments, we can cite the well-known example of children
-
"Mowgli." So, in India, a newborn girl spent several years in a troop of monkeys. When she's at 11
- she came to people at a young age, she could not speak, walked on all fours, and could not learn to eat with a spoon. She looked more like an animal than a person. On the other hand, there are cases when children who were born seriously ill, disabled, with the help of special development methods, through their own efforts, with the participation of relatives, overcame their biological imperfection and became famous scientists, politicians, etc. Thus, A is right Pierron: looking at a newborn, we do not yet know whether he will become a person with all his inherent qualities or will be a creature biologically similar to a person, but deprived of the social and cultural characteristics characteristic of him.
"Don't be greedy
-
already have wealth, not wasteful
-
income." (M. Montaigne)
In my opinion, this statement is akin to the saying: “It is not the one who has a lot of money who is rich, but the one who has fewer needs.”
What are these statements about, what is their essence? Each person determines for himself whether he is rich or not, although sometimes his assessment is based on comparison with other people. There is always something for a greedy person
- something is missing. A very striking example of this can be found in Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” where Plyushkin doesn’t have enough of everything. His chests are full of wealth, and he dresses and eats like a beggar. In modern life everything is the same, to whom
- then there is not enough money for a two-level apartment, and he considers himself poor, but who
- he considers himself rich, because... he has bread on his table every day. However, there is another side to this. Wealth
-
This is not only the absence of greed, but also frugality, rationalism and pragmatism. Let's analyze the second half of the phrase
M. Montaigne “not to be wasteful
- income". Income
- this is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Expenditures of the population are called consumption. A rational consumer must be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, and optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, a situation may arise where expenses will exceed income. And here it depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when rich nobles brought their fortunes to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their labor, became prosperous. Or another example: Ford began his career with the first car. If he had spent the money received only on current needs, he would never have been able to found a car company. The investment of initial capital in the business became the basis of his wealth. Therefore, I agree with M. Montaigne’s statement.

It might be useful to read: