essay the poorest person is the one who does not know how to use what he has?

Issue resolved and closed.

I agree with the first responder... :) Writing is quite easy and, most importantly, useful, as it teaches you to reason, to think. :) It will take about 2-3 times more time than if you downloaded and redid it.

A huge plus is that one of the other students who also download works from the Internet will not have their own essay.

oh, so I'm outstanding =) I've learned to understand people quite well, it's enough for me to look at a person and talk with him for 15 minutes to understand whether it is worth communicating and contacting him further.
also, found types of people, and deduced their categories. and each person I have scattered into different categories. respectively, and the attitude to each category is appropriate.

I will write for 5 lats

OH YEAH!!! Especially for girls over 50.

A man without dreams, without love, without hope. A person who is ready to exchange a dream for sitting in an office and receiving a stable income. A person who will marry / marry some kind of, but reliable person. A person who does not seek anything and does not want to search in this world. A person who will trade stability and money for love and a dream. These are the poor people.

I serve grandfathers, for some reason they are more pitiful than others.

It is not worth discussing the answers of the mentally handicapped. They are, by definition, meaningless. It can be seen that it was often dropped in childhood, or vice versa, it was thrown too high :)

Judging by the results - NOTHING_THE_GO)

no, if it tsaratsya, then it's probably not poverty. I associate a poor person with such a person who doesn’t care about everything, only exists and everything, nothing bothers. And as long as there is desire, there is life))

Ja po4ti nepodaju milostinju...tak kak neuveren 4to eti ljudi ne pjanici... Ja inogda kidaju v magazinah dlja detej monetki...malo kone4no...no esli vse po 4uto4ke kinut..gljadiw i mnogo budet:/

A striking scope for thought opens up to us the statement of Pierre Boiste.

The theme of poverty is always relevant. In the modern world, you can feel confident only if you learn to navigate financial matters. In sociology, the following concept is known: poverty is the economic and social condition of people who have a minimum amount of money, education, power, to meet their needs. In my opinion, the statement raises not just the problem of poverty, but also the causes of this condition.

I agree with the opinion that the reason lies in the unwillingness and inability to use what people have. Many, finding themselves in a situation of poverty and poverty, are justified by the fact that they are deprived of finances.

But after all, each of us has our own natural talents, abilities that can be realized and benefited only by doing everything right. Not all rich people are rich by birth. Many rose through correct use their human abilities. It all depends on the desire and efforts of the person himself.

For example, this statement can be illustrated by the example of a developed country in the world - Japan. This country, having a small territory, limited resources, is one of the most developed countries in the world. The Japanese make the most of every opportunity. Everyone knows gifted people who started from scratch, developing their abilities and expanding their knowledge. An example of such people is Henry Ford, the creator of the automobile.

He started with hard work for 10 hours a day. But thanks to knowledge, enthusiasm and own strength he was able to gain recognition. The mass of people having higher education, delightful talents in various fields degraded, joining the ranks of those poor people.

Thus, it should be understood that wealth or poverty is not inherent in us by nature, it is not a gift, but the result of human efforts and labor. The result of how he was able to use the resources that he has

Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing

Updated: 2018-03-10

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

.

Useful material on the topic

The meaning of the statement is that those people who do not appreciate what they have, what surrounds them, experience "poverty". There is "poverty" material and spiritual.

Material poverty is understood as the fact that a person is not able to satisfy his material needs due to a lack of available material resources.

And the spiritual poor is the person who has a deficit or lack of moral values, feelings to meet spiritual needs. Such a person is not able to know the beauty in the world around him.

I share the point of view of the French lexicographer. I believe that a materially rich, but spiritually poor person cannot fully live happily, such a person is doomed to misfortune.

To justify my point of view, I will give examples from fiction and life experience.

A gentleman from San Francisco in the story of the same name by I.A. Bunina is a materially rich, wealthy person.

But he has absolutely no human feelings ("He, like anyone who has experienced a pitching, only really wanted to eat, dreamed with pleasure of the first spoonful of soup, the first sip of wine, and performed the usual business of the toilet even in some excitement, leaving no time for feelings and reflections. "). He is not able to know the beauty of nature, the beauty of art and the whole world around him. Spiritual poverty leads the master to death, because he only did what he was engaged in intense and meaningless work, putting off for the future " real life", rest, all pleasures and entertainments.

Boris Berezovsky is a Russian entrepreneur and businessman. As of 2012, he was on the list of the 100 richest businessmen in Russia, but after a while he was ruined.

Why did this happen? Because he was a spiritually poor man, he had a thirst for wealth, love of money, because of which Berezovsky filed a lawsuit against Roman Abramovich in order to compensate for a large amount of money. The trial was lost to them. Boris had to pay legal fees, which led to impoverishment. The ruin caused a psychological decline, soon the businessman committed suicide.

Thus, the person who does not appreciate what he has and what surrounds him is considered poor, which means that P. Buast's statement is true. The true, main wealth of a person is spiritual values ​​and knowledge.

Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing

Updated: 2017-01-04

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

.

The poorest is the one who does not know how to use what he has.
Pierre Buast

In today's money-riddled world, you can feel confident only if you learn how to navigate financial matters. Meanwhile modern man, oddly enough, never taught finance; the subject “Money” is not taught in schools. The lack of habit among Russian citizens to use the services of financial institutions and understand the intricacies of legal documents really hinders the development of the national economy.

What is financial literacy? In a market society, a person has been using money, credit cards since childhood. He knows exactly what savings are, the difference between deposits, fixed and variable interest, pension funds, insurance, loans. This is the minimum that a person should have in any case, because we have credit cards, there are insurance everywhere - car, life, health, and so on, that is, there is a level that everyone should know. There is a second stage - a higher level - this is a mortgage, securities, bonds - state, private, mutual funds. Here you need to understand what to invest in and what risks you have. To be financially literate, you need to have information. The first is simple knowledge for everyone, the second is more complete and voluminous knowledge for those who have deposits, and they must properly dispose of them and not lose them. There should be a government program designed specifically to teach the basics of financial literacy:

how to create your personal capital, how to save it and increase it; what is investment; how to protect yourself and your family from possible financial difficulties; how to provide yourself with a decent pension, learn about what a personal financial plan of a person, how to write one, and how the plan helps the person achieve their financial goals.

Unfortunately, many do not have this knowledge. The vast majority of clients of Russian banks have the most superficial understanding of the essence of the services offered. And this is explained, first of all, by their complexity: one standard deposit agreement takes at least two pages of small text, the reading of which, not to mention understanding, takes considerable time. Of course, the bank must make every effort to ensure that the client is aware of the proposed conditions. And here a lot depends on the legal service, marketers and, of course, advertising specialists, whose task is to tell the potential client about the product, long before he comes to the bank.

For our country, the problem of financial education of the population is not new. It has sharply confronted society for the last 10-15 years, during which a huge number of people have been drawn into various kinds of financial scams. Suffice it to recall the financial pyramid "MMM", which managed to collect hundreds of millions of dollars. But the seriousness and scale of this problem do not allow any one bank or financial institution to solve it. Moreover, the problem of financial illiteracy cannot be considered only as a relationship between two parties: financial institutions and the population. This problem to a large extent affects the state. After all, the long-predicted problem of non-payments, primarily on express loans, concerns the entire society as a whole. And if, nevertheless, this happens sooner or later, then everyone will have to look for a solution: banks, customers and, of course, the state. That is why the search for a solution to eliminate financial illiteracy should be made taking into account the interests of all three parties.

Today, our population has a rather low level of awareness about financial services, products, as well as about the rules for their provision and use.

Public opinion surveys show that it is not going to study. Most of the population in surveys shows not only the lack of sufficient knowledge in financial matters, but also the unwillingness to independently raise their level of awareness. In the perception of a significant number of citizens, banks still remain inaccessible financial institutions. Thus, according to NAFI, about 47% of respondents believe that banks are intended mainly for wealthy clients. About 62% of respondents believe that in banking products and services are hard to figure out. And almost 64% of citizens demonstrate distrust towards financial institutions in general, believing that investing in banks is risky.

Thus, the majority of the population is still inclined to invest their money in traditional financial mechanisms and institutions. And against the background of the growth of savings, and, accordingly, the development of the investment potential of the population, this becomes a serious obstacle to the full involvement and full participation of citizens in financial markets.

P. Baust.

Under the standard of living understand the degree of provision of goods, services and living conditions necessary for a comfortable and safe existence. Why do some manage to achieve a high standard of living and prosperity, while others do not get out of poverty? This is where the words of P. Baust come to mind: “The poorest is the one who does not know how to use what he has.” The author talks about the economic problem of limited resources. Happiness is not in the amount of resources, but in the ability to manage your limited resources in such a way that you can provide your unlimited needs as much as possible.

One cannot but agree with this opinion, especially since life itself provides us with many examples of this problem.

Japan, for example, is considered today one of the richest countries, although historically it has very limited resources. And Russia, one of the few countries with the most extensive and numerous resources, is far from a rich country. And this proves that the condition for the level of well-being is effective use available factors of production: land, capital, labor, entrepreneurship and information.

The level of well-being to a large extent depends on the perfection of economic mechanisms, i.e. ways and forms of combining the efforts of people in solving problems of life support. Such economic mechanisms include division of labor, specialization and trade. They create conditions for achieving high labor productivity and allow the exchange of produced goods on a mutually beneficial basis. An example is the comparison of the life of African tribes based on a subsistence economy and the life of Western European countries, whose economy is based on a commodity economy.

The use of outdated technologies, the low level of skills of personnel, the wasteful use of natural resources also affect the standard of living.

A vivid example of the ability to use what they have is Japan. Elements of the "Japanese economic miracle" can be called tight control over foreign trade. The import of any product that could be produced or was produced in the country was excluded. Another leverage was the introduction of advanced technologies that the Japanese were buying up all over the world. This allowed them to save on their own scientific developments, and the introduction of technologies earlier than in the countries that developed them gave a significant advantage in international competition. At the expense of the corporation, the improvement of qualifications and the level of education of workers is ensured. High quality and relative low cost Japanese goods allowed them to quickly and successfully conquer world markets, and the state and citizens to grow rich.

ECONOMY.

1. "Money is freedom forged in gold."

(E.M. Remarque)

It is difficult to disagree with the German writer. Freedom is the ability of a person to satisfy any need. For example, with the help of money you can satisfy all physiological needs (housing, food, etc.), you can satisfy social needs (communication, travel, etc.). With the help of money, prestigious needs are fulfilled (an expensive car, branded clothes, etc.), spiritual needs can also be satisfied with the help of money (a ticket to a concert of a famous artist, an expensive book, etc.).

Having money makes a person independent. Money enables them owner do as he pleases. For example, to buy any goods, give them on bail, exchange them for securities. He, in comparison with a person without money, has a huge advantage in the implementation of his desires, he is economically free. Money is a universal commodity equivalent that expresses the value of goods and serves as an intermediary in their exchange for each other. The owner can use them in different ways: purchase goods and services (circulation function), pay debts or obligatory payments with them (payment function), put them in the bank to increase the amount of money (accumulation function), etc. The owner of money can organize his own production, because it has initial capital, and engage entrepreneurial activity. Thus, money makes a person free in relation to the economic decisions he makes, so it can be argued that money is freedom.

But this freedom is forged from gold, according to Remarque, because in Remarque's time, money was backed by gold, i.e., each unit of currency corresponded to a certain established mass of gold. One of the functions of money is “treasures”, i.e. means of accumulation, and where there is treasure, there can be no freedom. Gold weighs a lot, it costs a lot. Many believe that only the poor, who have nothing to lose, are truly free. Wealth is considered a great test for a person, and not all people cope with it with dignity, otherwise a writer like Remarque would not touch on this topic, opposing freedom and gold. It's about economic responsibility.

Money for a person should remain a means, but not an end. And freedom is in how to spend them, because. We know that to whom much is given, much is required. It is no coincidence that among the rich people there are many who are involved in charity work. Not so long ago, the famous Bill Gates announced that he was retiring from business, and he intended to spend his huge fortune, minus some interest in favor of his children, on education and children's health care. Charity should always stand next to wealth, this was also the case with our Russian entrepreneurs, thanks to whom we have the Tretyakov Gallery, the Moscow Art Theater, and others. How many people probably envy the rich at such a moment, who have such an opportunity, the main thing is to make right choice, because freedom is the ability to choose, and money should help you make the right choice, because they are “freedom forged from gold.”

2. "Prices and other market instruments regulate the distribution of rare resources in society, thereby limiting the desires of participants, coordinating their actions."

(G.S. Becker)

What does price mean and what other market instruments did Becker have in mind? Price is the monetary expression of the value of a commodity. Speaking of other market instruments, the author most likely had in mind supply and demand, their interaction. More precisely, the law of demand (there is an inversely proportional relationship between the price and the volume of demand, with an increase in the price, the volume of demand decreases) and the law of supply (there is a direct relationship between the volume of supply and the price of a product, i.e., with an increase in the product, the volume of supply increases). Thus, the price, the laws of supply and demand regulate the market, the number of participants in it, coordinate their actions. And it's hard to disagree with that. For example, the oil industry is highly profitable. However, not everyone can engage in oil production, because this activity requires expensive equipment that not only small entrepreneurs, but even some countries cannot afford. Or another example, black and red caviar are a delicacy, everyone would like to have them on their table, but due to the high cost, not every family can afford it. The production of caviar is limited, otherwise the price of caviar will fall, and the profit will remain unchanged both with an increased volume, but a low price, and with a low volume, but a high selling price. On the other hand, it contributes to the preservation of limited natural resources. The main principle of the market is that the transaction should be profitable for both the seller and the buyer. Thanks to this, all people (and hence the whole society) achieve the best result for themselves, the resources of society are distributed in the most rational way. Price and other market instruments act as invisible hand, which regulates the limited resources in the economy.

3. "Trade has not yet ruined a single nation."

(B. Franklin)

The author wanted to say that the occupation trading activities beneficial to society, it can lead to its prosperity. I think we should agree with this. Trade has developed since the development of social relations. Some sell, others buy. Trade took place even when there were no coins. Animal skins, precious metals, etc. could serve as money. Trade is the most common form of exchange in which the ownership of a good (good, service) passes 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 Russia. Trade truly united Russia. Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. Carts with grain from the Dnieper region went to Novgorod; salt was brought from Volhynia to all lands; from north to south - furs, fish. Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone items to other countries. Foreign goods came from other countries: fabrics, weapons, gems, jewelry, church utensils, wine. Thus, the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks" contributed to the development of the Eastern Slavs and became one of the prerequisites for the formation of their state.

International trade helps to establish relations with countries even when they have a lot of political contradictions, such as Russia and Japan have a dispute over Kuril Islands, but this does not prevent building mutually beneficial trade relations.

In order for a country to enter the world market, it needs to have export resources, that is, stocks of competitive goods and services that are in demand, currency or other means of paying for imports, as well as a developed foreign trade infrastructure: vehicles, warehouses, means of communication, etc. Settlements for foreign trade operations are carried out by banking organizations, and the country's insurance business carries out insurance of goods and transportation. Of course, if necessary, you can use the services of other countries, but these are expensive services, and each country participating in the world market strives to create its own infrastructure, which leads to a general rise in the level of development of the state.

Trade not only has not ruined a single nation, but is the first and oldest form of international relations, which is very important in our complex, contradictory world.

4. "Do not be greedy - there is already wealth, not wasteful - income."

(M. Montaigne)

This statement is akin to the saying: "Not the rich one who has a lot of money, but the one who has fewer needs." The problem of the economy is, as you know, the unlimited needs of society in conditions of limited resources. One of the solutions to this problem is to reduce needs to reasonable limits and save resources, which is what the author is talking about, and with which one cannot but agree. Each person himself determines whether he is rich or not, although sometimes his assessment is formed as a result of comparison with other people. A greedy person is always missing something. World literature provides many such vivid examples: Plyushkin, the Miserly Knight, Gobsek, etc. In modern life, everything is the same: someone does not have enough money for a two-level apartment, and he considers himself poor, and someone considers himself rich, because. he has bread on the table every day. The education of reasonable needs in a person is the task of a civilized society, the solution of which will help to solve and global problem with the depletion of natural resources, because of which so much blood is shed in our time around the world. Suffice it to recall the conflicts in the Middle East, where a real battle for control over oil and gas unfolded.

Wealth is not only the absence of greed, but also frugality, rationalism and pragmatism. Income is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Household spending is called consumption. A rational consumer should be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, there may be a situation that expenses will exceed income. And here much 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 wealthy nobles brought their fortunes to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their work and economy, became prosperous, for example, the Morozovs, Putilovs, and Bakhrushins. Or another example: Ford started his career with the first car. If the money received for him, he spent only on current needs, he would never be able to establish a company.

Thus, one cannot be a money-grubber and an egoistic consumer, overwhelmed by the thirst to possess everything. The ability to save, rationally manage capital is a necessary condition for the efficient use of resources, and, consequently, the successful comfortable existence of an individual and society as a whole.

5. "Competition is the only method of mutual coordination of our individual actions without coercion or arbitrary interference by the authorities."

(F. Hayek)

Competition in the economy is understood as the rivalry of economic activity participants in the struggle to achieve the best results. It seems to me that the definition of competition given by the author accurately defines its essence. The word "show jumping" refers to a special type of equestrian competition - overcoming various obstacles. From this word came the word "competition" - competition, rivalry for the achievement of certain advantages. Competition is the regulator of not only economic, but also political, cultural, interpersonal relationships. Competition performs the function of mutual coordination of our actions without interference from the authorities: people compete for top scores, greater profits, better living conditions. In the course of competition, they objectively change the objects around them, their relations, adapt to each other, strive to keep up with others, that is, they carry out mutual coordination of actions. Competition, the struggle between producers of goods and services has existed since the first steps in the development of commodity production. It is one of the basic conditions for a market economy. For example, on the market, a certain product is presented in excess, i.e., the value of supply is greater than the value of demand. This is where the law of competition manifests itself: a manufacturer, by increasing efficiency, can reduce production costs, reduce the cost of a product, improve its quality and, ultimately, reduce the price of its product. This will "spur" other manufacturers to retaliate. A decrease in price will increase the quantity demanded for that good. Thus, competition can, without any state intervention, regulate supply and demand, coordinate the actions of various manufacturers. In countries Western Europe and the United States until the end of the 19th century. the state almost did not interfere in economic processes. But free competition over time led to the emergence of large firms that began to control entire industries, i.e. became monopolies. The essence of monopoly is economic dictatorship by setting monopoly high (or low) prices in order to obtain monopoly high profits. Monopoly generates high prices, mismatch between supply and demand, widens the gap between the rich and the poor. There was a need to protect the economic interests of entrepreneurs and consumers. in the United States at the end of the 19th century. antitrust laws appeared, which the state used to improve the market system. Modern market significantly different from the market of free competition. V developed countries there is a mixed economy in which an invisible market mechanism and government regulation operate simultaneously. The modern market economy is not chaos and anarchy, although it does not eliminate the elements of the market, it is a well-established mechanism for coordinating the activities of producers and consumers, which develops along with society. With the development of civilization, the market also becomes civilized. Since the 90s of the XX century. Russia is coming along the path of a modern market economy. Anti-monopoly laws were adopted, including the Law “On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activities in Commodity Markets”. But there is no once and for all a certain combination of planned and market elements of regulation for any economic circumstances. For each specific historical situation, a search is necessary optimal combination market and government mechanisms for regulating the economy. Other examples of competition that are not related to economics can be cited: the competition of musical groups, presidential elections, entrance exams, etc. Despite the fact that everywhere there is an element of competition, rivalry, these examples are also united by the presence of certain rules that are common to all.

6. “In business and in sports, too many people are afraid of competition. As a result, people avoid striving for success if it requires hard work, training and self-sacrifice.” K. Rockne.

The word "competition" comes from sports. "Jumping" is a special kind of equestrian competition, overcoming various obstacles. Many people take part in the competition, but not everyone comes to the finish line, and only a few rise to the podium as winners. Before the competition, there were long, exhausting workouts, injuries, tears and stress. But victory for the most worthy is a moment that redeems everything. The author of the statement compares competition in sports with competition in business, and I understand his position. In the economy, sellers of goods and services compete with each other to attract as many buyers as possible. They also take risks, like athletes, but the rule also applies here: “The higher the bar, the higher the jump.” The risks of an entrepreneur are the funds invested in the business, reputation, health, and sometimes even life. Not everyone is ready for this, many "leave the race" without tasting the fruits of victory. Competition contributes to the rational use of limited resources, stimulates the reduction of production and sales costs, increasing production efficiency, improving the consumer properties of goods; at the same time, it leads to a differentiation in the incomes of producers and consumers, in the extreme case, to ruin. Many in business are afraid of competition, and as a result, they do not achieve great heights, but remain at the level of mediocrity.

The big established firms weren't always like that. For example, Apple, founded by Steve Jobbe. Together in the garage they developed their programs. There was a lot of work, risks, struggle with competitors, and now this is the best computer campaign with several hundred thousand employees.

Thus, in order to succeed, to take your heights, you need to work hard, be ready for self-sacrifice, have patience and endurance, and most importantly, not be afraid of competition and move towards your goal.

“Nature creates a person, but develops and forms his society” (V. G. Belinsky).

I think that the words of V.G. Belinsky perfectly illustrate the biosocial essence of man. Throughout his life, a person goes through learning to live in society, that is, to go through the process of socialization - familiarization with traditional values, the foundations of the surrounding world. This process is limited by two poles: birth and death. From early childhood, a person is surrounded by primary agents of socialization: the family, Kindergarten, school. Formation of character and worldviews - these are the main tasks primary agents. Secondary agents of socialization, such as universities, professional institutions, the workplace, form a picture of the vast surrounding world and a person's place in it. Thanks to the agents of socialization, a person becomes a personality, shows his individual characteristics and abilities in interaction with people. A person can determine who he is by comparing himself with other people, listening to the opinions of others. According to Maslow's theory, there is a pyramid of human needs. The foundation of the pyramid is biological needs (thirst, hunger, sleep, procreation); in the middle of the pyramid are social needs (labor, self-realization); and the highest are spiritual needs (knowledge, worldview). All needs are closely related. A person cannot live without food, water, and air, and then he cannot live without communication with other people. History knows the facts that without communication with people a person goes crazy, and without developing his intellectual abilities, he ceases to be a person and lives at the natural level, satisfying biological needs.
Thus, the fundamental basis of a person is his biological essence, and the core basis is his social essence. I fully agree with the opinion of the famous writer V. G. Belinsky that “nature creates a person, but develops and forms his society”.

“Progress is a movement in a circle, but faster and faster.” L. Levinson.

I cannot fully agree with L. Levinson's statement, which characterizes the progress of mankind as moving in a circle, despite the fact that one hundred and most social scientists consider progress to be progressive movement forward. I believe that humanity, from its inception to the present, is in constant motion. Science, technology, the human mind are developing, and if we compare the primitive and our days, it is clear that human society is progressing. From the primitive herd we came to the state, from primitive tools to perfect technology, and if earlier a person could not explain such natural phenomena as a thunderstorm or a change of year, by now he has already mastered space. Based on these considerations, I cannot agree with L. Levinson's point of view on progress as a cyclical movement. In my opinion, such an understanding of history means marking time without moving forward, constant repetition ..
Time will never turn back, no matter what factors contribute to the regression. Man will always solve any problem and will not allow his kind to die out.
Of course, there have always been ups and downs in history, and therefore I believe that the graph of human progress is an upward broken line, in which ups prevail in magnitude over downs, but not a straight line or a circle. This can be seen by recalling some historical or life facts.
In the first place, downturns in the progress graph create wars. For example, Russia began its history as a powerful state, able to outstrip any other in its development. But as a result Tatar-Mongol invasion it lagged behind for many years, there was a decline in culture, the development of the country's life. But, despite everything, Russia stood up and continued to move forward.
Secondly, the progress of society is hindered by such a form of organization of power as a dictatorship. In the absence of freedom, society cannot progress; a person turns from a thinking being into a tool in the hands of a dictator. This is seen in the example Nazi Germany: Hitler's regime of power for decades slowed down political progress, the development of freedom and human rights, democratic institutions of power.
Thirdly, oddly enough, but sometimes recessions in the development of society occur through the fault of the person himself, i.e. associated with scientific and technological progress. Many people now prefer communication with machines to human communication. As a result, the level of humanity is falling. The invention of nuclear reactors is, of course, a great discovery that allows saving natural energy resources, but in addition to nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons were also created, which brought incalculable misfortunes to people and nature. An example of this is the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the explosion in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, humanity has come to its senses, realizing the real threat of such weapons: many countries now have a moratorium on the production of nuclear weapons.
Thus, the progress of the human mind and society as a whole and the predominance in history of the positive actions of people over their mistakes are obvious. It is also obvious that social progress is not an endless movement in a circle, which, in principle, cannot be considered progress, but a movement forward and only forward.

"Freedom is the right to inequality"

I agree with this statement, because I believe that freedom is the main characteristic of human existence, its essence, and at the same time, the historical experience of mankind, unfortunately, shows that people do not use this freedom in the same way. As the German philosopher Hegel wrote: "Freedom is a recognized necessity." The freedom of the individual in its various manifestations appears today the most important value civilized society. But in order to understand its full significance, it is necessary to turn to examples from history.
A natural feature of the development of mankind is the uneven distribution of freedom between representatives of various estates, strata, classes, which gives rise to an uneven distribution of rights between people, and leads to social and legal inequality. Even in primitive society there were elders and leaders who were distinguished by their rights and duties and occupied more high position compared to other peers. The most striking example showing the importance of freedom for a person is slavery - historically the first and most brutal form of exploitation, in which the slave, along with the instruments of labor production, was the property of his master - the slave owner. In the history of Russia, such an example is serfdom. But each new stage of social development adds new qualities to the freedom and equality of people, extending them to an ever wider range of subjects.
In the most general sense of the word, freedom is the ability to choose an action that does not depend on any external force, therefore, like many social values, it needs law. Law gives freedom social quality, at which the activity of each person is consistent with the activity of other people. Law is the measure of freedom. After all, unlimited freedom gives rise to crime: if a person committed a crime and was not subjected to any punishment for it, he will consider that everything is permissible for him and will begin to commit more and more crimes. And as the great Roman wrote statesman Lucius Annei Seneca: "Sparing criminals harms honest people." But in order to combat violations of the law, the state needs not only to toughen punishments and enforce them, but also to develop legal awareness among its citizens. People must learn to respect the laws and consider it their duty to keep them. And the law, in turn, must be humane, just, but at the same time, as Charles Montesquieu said, “it looks like death that spares no one.”
But why, then, in a modern society that guarantees equality, there is a problem of different distribution of freedom and, as a consequence, the appearance of inequality?
The cause of this problem throughout the history of mankind remains the same. People unite in the course of their life activity, and human society is a set of different social groups. Different social groups occupy different positions in society, which is determined by unequal rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, property and income, attitudes towards power and influence among members of their community, and subsequently a different amount of legal freedom. Social differentiation - the division of society into social groups was and is the main obstacle to the formation of a rule of law state. And as world experience shows, community development, including the legal one, the greatest influence is exerted by the interests of not all social groups, but only those that are in power: the exploiting classes and the ruling elites.
Freedom is the right to inequality, because the more opportunities a person has, the more privileges. And therefore, “freedom,” as O. Bismarck wrote, “is a luxury that not everyone can afford.

“Only a being with reason can be unreasonable. Animals do not commit unreasonable actions "(T. Oizerman)

In this saying, Oizerman, with whom I absolutely agree, raises the problem of a person's responsible attitude to the products of his mental activity.
This problem, in my opinion, is relevant in the modern world. After all, according to the theory of anthroposociogenesis, a person as a biopsychosocial being has the most highly organized essence, possesses advanced thinking and consciousness. He is able to create an artificial environment, use the forces of nature to create something new. For example, the famous scientist D. Sakharov was one of the developers of atomic weapons, hydrogen bomb. The theory of nuclear fission can be beneficial, or it can cause irreparable harm to nature, society, and man. D. Sakharov then spoke about this in his speeches.
Indeed, a person can achieve the goal by choosing the means and methods of activity. And he can choose an immoral, evil method. A striking example of this is deviant behavior, namely delinquency. For example, a knife can also serve as a murder weapon, or the painkiller morphine can serve as a drug.
But the behavior of animals is always predictable, because. it reflects the instincts inherent in nature. Man has already studied animals well and knows what to expect from them.
Thus, thanks to thinking, a person invented many objects, things, theories, teachings. He can use all this for the benefit of himself, society, nature., And maybe to the detriment. Everything depends on the moral state of a person, what value and moral guidelines he uses. The words of the Russian philosopher and historian Solovyov “A person can be defined as an animal that is ashamed” confirm the idea that a person chooses how to act and is responsible for his actions, which should be based on moral norms, but this is not always the case.

“Humanity is only a habit, a fruit of civilization. She may disappear completely. F.M.Dostoevsky

Humanity (humanism) is philanthropy, awareness of one's own value and the value of another person. Humanism emphasizes precisely the human qualities of a person, what distinguishes him from the animal world, and attaches him to the spiritual sphere.
“Man stands in the center of the world” - this is the motto of the humanists of the Middle Ages (there are the origins of this doctrine).

In modern social science, two directions are attributed to humanism: anthropocentrism and individualism.
Representatives of humanistic views believe that a good or, at least, a neutral beginning is inherent in human nature. The destructive forces in people are the result of unsatisfied needs, not some kind of birth defects. Indeed, humanism was born against the backdrop of material well-being Italian nobility and bohemia (artists, writers), when their physiological needs were satisfied, people felt safe. Then a desire arose for the main content of humanism (according to Maslow) - the creative transformation of the surrounding world.
Obviously, Maslow's teaching coincides with the worldview of the great Russian writer of the 19th century, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. However, I, like Dostoevsky, am not sure that humanity will always preach the ideals of humanism. After all, there may come times when, most likely, it will strive for survival. For example, new World War, a universal catastrophe that can put humanity on the brink of survival.

But in everyday life without global upheavals, the values ​​of humanism need to be promoted and protected. For example, the rights of the second generation from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which secure the right of a person to spiritual perfection.
Much, of course, depends on this issue and on the individual principles of each person. There are people who, on a ship in distress, first of all save women and children, and then save themselves. These are personalities with a capital letter. They will not be able to live in peace if they do otherwise.

Thus, I would transform the idea of ​​F.M. Dostoevsky that humanity is the fruit of civilization into the idea that humanity, unfortunately, is a “piece of goods” modern society. And in order not to lose yourself in this society, always remaining a man, and seeing and appreciating the “man” in others, it is important not to lose respect for human values and in any situation just be human.

“Man is unthinkable outside of society” (L.N. Tolstoy)