Anarchists advocate for no hierarchy, no government. Libertarians want a government, but they want a very weak and limited government. Libertarians want a government that most always yields to the individual and their rights. Libertarians celebrate the individual and their freedom from government intrusion in their lives.
A nice rule of thumb way of remembering what libertarianism advocates is this: maximum individual freedom and minimum government intervention.
Some libertarians say that the government only has two basic roles to play in our lives.
1. The first role of government is to enforce contractual agreements between people. If we sign a contract and one of us breaks the contract, then the government should step in and determine who is at fault and what compensation needs to be paid and by whom.
2. The second role of government is to provide national defense -- the stress is on defensive capabilities, not offensive war-making capabilities. A country needs to be able to defend itself from other countries and dangerous actors in world politics, but a country doesn't need the capability to attack other countries and it doesn't need bases in other countries.
Outside of these two basic roles, people should be able to live their lives however they choose to live them and the government should stay out of their business. Individuals should have the freedom to do with their bodies and property whatever they want, as long as they don't go around harming other people or destroying other peoples' property.
What do you think? Should the government have more of a role in our lives than just enforcing contracts and providing for national defense? Or is the libertarian notion better -- that the government should only have two basic roles?
If the government was limited to enforcing contracts and providing for national defense, how would that change peoples' daily lives? What about public roads, public schools, public parks? Would those changes be for the better or worse?
Do you see any potential problems with giving people this much freedom?
Take a few minutes, look over the questions, and spend a few minutes responding to some of the queries.
I feel like the basic concepts make a lot of sense but I also feel like in a sense government plays a big role in maintaining public schools, parks, and roads. I would like to think however that the people could manage these things for themselves though. I think that the that the idea of people being able to live their own lives and do what they want with their lives and property as long as they are not harming others is a really good idea. I also agree with the notion that the government is really necessary when it can perform the act better than the people. That makes sense because government gives us a way of organization that most people need. It makes more sense for us to have a minor set of guidelines to go by then to be ruled completely. I definitely think that some government is important because it does do some helpful things for our society, like helping us get financial aid for school. Without it a lot of us would probably not even be in college.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you said. The basic concepts have good intentions and they do make sense. However, the government plays a big role in society and a lot of people depend on it. I think the government does help maintain public school, parks, and roads. I kind of doubt that society itself would be able to cooperate with each other to preserve or maintain them. I also agree w the idea of people doing what they want but there are also limits to what a person should be able to do too. I think the government should play a role in our lives more so than the two roles already described. If the government only had the two basic rules I think there would be less funding, welfare/ food stamps, etc.
Deletemaddy manfull
PSCI 100
9:10-10
I think government should have more of a role in our life than just enforcing contracts and providing national defense to an extent. I think there shouldn't be government telling us that gay marriage isn't allowed in certain states. In my opinion we should be making laws that have more significance for this country. We do need government to take care of our parks, roads, and schools. Without the governments help these things would be in poor shape. Having less rules and guidelines wouldn't be a bad thing. It would give Americans more freedom, there will be criminals and people who don't follow the norms no matter what, and we see that in today's world.
ReplyDeleteThe whole 'minimum government maximum individual rights' sounds really good to any average American, and that shows in our national politics having a clearly libertarian tint. However, it does not look like we are diving as deep as we probably should into the implications of having a government who's only jobs include judicial work and national defense. Some of you have already pointed out that the thought of having a small government is strange, and that certain things the government provides is good, and we want them to provide us with these things (public highways, schools, etc.). But the government has another job, a power, that is crucial to our economy and everyday lives. We talked about having a totally private business model in an absolute anarchical governing system, and in a libertarian government it would be that same way. The major problem I see with this is quite simple: corruption. In today's wold our government has helped in creating industry standards and polices every business MUST adhere to in order to continue their business. Now there are unions and leagues of professionals in each section of the economic world that has their own ways of setting standards that must also be adhered to, but the government is the one to enforce and prosecute those who do not follow them. So in a world where the government has next to no power, our lives will not be dominated and controlled by them. Instead, we would be slaves to multimillion dollar corporations who do not have a check to their power within the country. And we will all be saying, like the ancient proverb goes, "We're luvin' it".
ReplyDeleteEmily Cooper 9:10-10am PSCI 100
The first ideal of Libertarianism is already being provided by our present-day government. The courts handle contractual disagreements and I see no change even being advocated (except perhaps a removal of the law enforcement agencies who would handle the criminal aspect of this kind of behavior).
ReplyDeleteThe second part I find interesting. I'd almost call it "politically correct". Back in the 1940s it was called the "War Department", yet we now refer to it as the Defense Department. Yet the whole idea of war / defense is really the same thing, for there is no defensive capability without offensive ability and the whole argument is a moot point. The bigger question should be whether or not we (the United States) should be the world's police force? If not us, then who? The United Nations does not have the real ability to enforce international law on anyone (just look at its track record) without the approval of a number of other nations (primarily those on the Security Council). Without a centralized government to rule the planet (preferably justly) in a way that everyone can agree on, there can never be peace on Earth. There will always be the threat of war and the "flexing of military muscle" between the world's actors. Considering the cultural, economic and military power that the United States has and is (even if indirectly and not meaning to) forcing on other countries, I can fully understand their animosity towards our government and people, especially given the fundamental differences between certain cultural groups (the West, the Middle East, Asia and Africa).
As to having bases in other countries I don't see as an issue (since we have treaties with them allowing us) to stay there... They're getting something in return and without these locations we could not be the "World Police", which is also directly related to what happened in the 1940s.
F. Sperry
0910 Class
I agree with the libertarian notion that some government is needed. Anarchism would be nice if attainable, but if you compare communism and anarchism, you realize a world without government is impossible. The ultimate goal of communism that Karl Marx envisioned is that eventually there would be a classless society and therefore government would no longer be necessary. So it is much like anarchism, but in a more gradual approach. Thus far that hasn't worked, so what evidence is there that the more immediate approach of anarchism would work? I also agree with the libertarian belief that individuals should be allowed to choose what they want to do with their body as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. However, I don't believe limiting government is the answer. If our roads, parks, and schools aren't maintained by the government, who would? I believe the government should still be held responsible for what happens in the United States. In recent years we've had a growing military presence across the globe that has done more harm than good. If nothing else, it's caused growing resentment since many people, even US citizens, believe that we shouldn't be the "police of the world." So, to conclude, I do believe government should be reduced, but not as much as libertarians are calling for.
ReplyDeleteAshley Tomlinson PSCI 100:05
DeleteI completely agree with you one hundred percent. I like how you also gave the example of Karl Marx with his hopes of a classless society and all workers unite. I believe that without a government we have nothing. Meaning no control over what happens in the United States. We need some form of government to maintain a somewhat safe environment for ourselves. Without a government we have chaos. Libertarians, anarchists, and even communists, live a life without structure like the government gives us and that alone is not something that works for the United States. Meaning, we should always have some form of government. So Ashley, I agree with your post and your examples you gave us.
DeleteTess Hyre
PSCI 9:10-10:00
One thing I realized is that in an extreme libertarian society we would each have to choose our police protection provider, our water and sewage service, our road vendor, our fire protection service, etc. BUT we would have to make these decisions based on the information they provided, but since there would be not much truth in Advertising,Act, (who would enforce it?) I'm not sure what I stand on the issue, but I know that a lot of problems would be caused without government
ReplyDeleteI whole heartily agree with you here, as this is a great expansion of some of the vague points I had made in the comments above. As you have said, who would enforce the checks of power for corporations if the government did not have the legal right to? The ideal answer: we, the consumers, would and also the businesses themselves. The more logical answer: no one, because making sure everything is right and obeys laws costs money.
DeleteI think that you do need more government intervention. Yes I do think you should be able to do whatever you want, but there are good reasons why you need government. The biggest reason why you do is if the government only has two roles then you would have to find a different provider for different services. For example the government wouldn't be the ones building the roads, so you would have to find some company willing to build the roads. Another example would be public schools. They already suck bad enough with government funding imagine how bad they would be without it. So I think they need to have a bigger role than the libertarian two role belief.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunford
PSCI 100:05
It's hard to imagine our country with a government so limited when it surrounds almost every aspect of lives, today. It's easy to swing towards libertarian ideas when they push towards advocating individual freedom and rights with respect to loosening the grip that the government has on our lives. I mean, why should someone, that knows nothing about you, have the ability to influence and control some many aspects of your life? Probably because you can't have your cake and eat it too. The relationship between freedoms and government intervention has to be balanced. More "individual freedom" therefore leads to a limited government. But, there will still be downfalls. Parents would have to pay for their children's education out of pocket. Without government assistance, some children wouldn't have the opportunity to earn an education. This could slow our growth as a country. Also, paved roads and interstates wouldn't be built, so therefore our ability to travel to great distances could be limited significantly. As for how people would react to this change, it is hard to say. It is easy to say people would go buckwild, but that might not be the case. Each individual is surrounded by different backgrounds, environments, cultures. But, I do say is that it would only take an individual or a group to turn things upside down.
ReplyDeleteChristiana Hess
PSCI 100:04
9:10-10:00
I like the libertarian notion of the government having two basic roles in our lives. The government is way to involved in our lives today, forcing healthcare and other policies down our throat. I feel we, as a country need to revolt or do something to take a stand soon. But then again, if we didn't have the government to chase down the burglar who stole grandma's purse, then I feel the world would be in a constant state of chaos. No one would bother to obtain a higher educations because the funding from the government would no longer be there. It has it's ups and downs, and as a country we just haven't found our balance yet.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Rao
DeletePSCI 100:05
10:10 - 11
I feel as if government should intervene in society as much as possible to maintain peace and order. If people did whatever they wanted, without hurting people and their property,then society would be nothing but chaos. For example, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and other western states is going completely against the federal government. However, the president feels as if it is an issue that doesn't need to be dealt with right now because there are other issues that seemingly outweigh the drug issue. Driving high is a huge problem because there is the possibility of hurting yourself or other people for being stoned while they operate a vehicle. This isn't okay. Creating a national defense is huge. Government should always have a powerful military in peace time or times of war. Our nation's warriors give us the freedom to live everyday life and have the opportunity to a better tomorrow. We, as the people in this country need government to fund education, state roads, national parks, and other facilities. Without it, there would be absolutely no balance in society. People would just do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The concept of minimum government intervention and maximum individual freedom is an misnomer in my eyes. Being a libertarian is controversial because you are having anarchist beliefs and also favoring some government interference. Government was created by the people and for the people. As corrupt as government may be, it is still crucial to have a strong federal government. Revolution after revolution would occur if government was to one day disappear.
ReplyDeleteI think the government should play a big role in our lives. I think there are certain aspects that individuals should control in their lives and i believe that there are also some certain aspects that the government should intervene and try to control. For instance, i think that the government should completely control drug use. I think drugs should not be allowed. For example, weed. Can you imagine if weed was legal? Everybody would be smoking it because they are allowed to. Can you imagine being operated on by a stoned surgeon? There should be rules that prohibit that. Also i believe the government should intervene more than just national defense and contractual agreements. The government should help those in need and should punish those who take advantage of government programs who are set for those in need. (For example octomom welfare fraud.) I also believe a person should chose whether they want to have abortions or marry gay or straight. Anyways cutting to the chase, i dont believe in maximum individualism and minimum government intervention. I believe in equal individualism with equal government intervention.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the government should have more of a role in our lives. I think what they do now is too much, but hey I don't have a choice.Libertarian is better than the government having more roles, but i am not a libertarian. The people would actually feel free. I guess the public roads would have to be people who work the city but not paid buy the government, paid because we the pot hole fixed. I believe it could be better, but nobody really knows. I see no problem with giving people this much freedom.
ReplyDeleteSean Yarborough
Psci 100
9:10 until 10
The government may be corrupt but I believe the government should have a role in our lives more than what Libertarians believe they should have. The government may provide and force upon us a lot of stupid things but there are other things the government provides that are good other than contractual agreements and national defense. Such as health care and social security. Many people need health care and social security to live their daily lives so I believe that they are important and helpful. Old people rely on Social Security and without it they wouldn't be able to retire and live a good rest of their lives. Although I believe the government should provided basic helpful needs, they should not be forced upon us. Also without government we would lose the funds provided to our schools, buildings, parks, and roads. Without the government, all of those funds would need to be found somewhere else. Education without the government would no longer be provided for free, and that would cause way more problems down the what would be a very bumpy road.
ReplyDeleteKirstyn Greenwalt
PSCI-100:05
10:10-11
I can see the appeal of a small government, and I can really understand a desire for the government to get out of everyday life, to only enforce contracts and provide for a defense. This all sounds well and good, however my only issue is the lack of a social safety net. I'm not saying we need hugely expansive welfare programs, but a small social safety net is needed in some instances, and I'm not sure if libertarianism adequately provides for that.
ReplyDeleteMike Morris
PSCI 100
MWF 10:10-11:00
Smaller government is much more appealing to me than more government or no government at all. I believe that the two rules of libertarians for government could set America up to be successful, although I do not feel it is totally correct. I am not sure what would be done about roads or national parks. Private businesses could take care of them but I am unsure of who would pay the businesses to do the work. I see some potential problems in terms of people harming themselves and others. With no law to say powerful drugs are illegal, people could get addicted and ruin their livelihood or worse take their own life.
ReplyDeleteI think the libertarian thought process is lacking this is because labor unions and public roads are beneficial.
ReplyDeletePublic roads, public schools, and public parks would be done and up kept by the people.
Kenneth Blosser
Psci 100
9:10 until 10
I really like a good bit of the libertarian perspective. I believe in a smaller government and that it should not intrude in every aspect of our lives. There are times when government intervention is needed but it does not need to inject itself into some of the things it already does. Its powers should be limited since it has shown us time and time again it can be incapable of performing the simplest tasks. I agree that there needs to be government for us to function as a society but not one that interferes in certain areas. Having said that, there are some of the libertarian perspective that I don't agree with. The idea of letting people do harmful things to themselves since it is their life is one thing but there is no way to stop those people from harming others through their reckless actions in the process.You can't guarantee that innocent people are not going to get hurt by the reckless actions of others.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the argument over anarchy, I feel that adjusting to a strictly libertarian form of government would be extremely difficult for United States citizens because we do rely so much on the government. As far as the two main functions of a libertarian government are concerned, I definitely agree with the notion that our national defense should be more defensive than offensive. I think that we are much more involved with international affairs than need be, especially when our country is far from perfect. I like the ideas that maximum individual freedom and minimal government intervention is emphasized, but I think the point that was raised in the original post about public roads, parks, etc. is one that certainly needs to be addressed. I think, like anarchism, the libertarian perspective is counting on people to take care of themselves and to also take care of the world in which we live. I honestly wonder how that would work because, like I mentioned in the beginning of my post, we are really reliant on our government and the services it provides us. We automatically expect there to be public services available to everyone yet if things were completely privatized, I'm not sure if the world would be as ideal as this perspective may seem. There are pros and cons to everything, but I think I am attracted to the idea of libertarianism most because it celebrates the individual and his or her rights rather than welcoming unwanted, unnecessary government intrusion.
ReplyDeleteEmily Daniels
DeletePSCI 100.04
9:10 - 10:00
Realistically I think it would be impossible to live in a strictly libertarian world where all the government could do was provide of the common defense and enforce contracts. If we lived in a world like that there would be no taxes and things like our roads, education, and our health insurance would be privatized making them exponentially more expensive. Yes, some people may be able to afford private education and healthcare, but most people would be able to afford them making a large gap between the rich and the poor. I am all for individual freedoms but a strictly libertarian system would never work.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be hard but not impossible. Sure, maybe strictly libertarian would be tough but the way they view things is ideal. They give everyone the rights everyone was intended to have. Society would be give and take, mutual aid. Doing favors in return for favors in which money would be less of a problem
DeleteI agree with what you said!! In ways I feel that I am a libertarianism because I like the way the government is right now. Honestly, if the government interfered more with our lives then we would all go insane. If the government backs off then schools would suffer because they wouldn't get the support they needed, we would be obtained to keep up with the roads and landscapes, yet we won't have time to enjoy life. So in a way, the government is perfectly fine with what they are doing now. I believe that they should back with the NSA because I don't think its right to watch our personal life 24/7. It's ok that they have cameras on the streets, subways, etc. because they are trying to keep the community safe, but our personal lives are our own business and it should stay that way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government ahould be limited, but not nearly as much as a liberitarian would want. The government plays an enormous role in the lives and professions of many citizens and to limit that would cut those jobs, althought this may or may not be beneficial in the long run, the immediate response would devestate the unemployment rate. Also national defense being cut would affect many soldiers and also would affect disabled soldiers and their benefits they fought for and put their lives in jepordy to attain. This would not sit well with many people and would create much more harm than good. Long story short limiting the government would be harmful in my opinion in many ways, and i don't agree with most liberitarian views.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that a libertarian government would be ideal because it gives Americans maximum freedom but at the same time I believe that we also need some type of government for schools, roads, and other public services. I like the idea of the libertarian government but I would not say that I am all about libertarian. I know that in class you mentioned that we don't need a strong army but a lot of people rely on being in the army for an income. Without a strong force would our country be more of a target because several countries already don't like us? I don't see any problems with giving people the freedom to do what they want with their body or property. I think that is the most beneficial component of libertinism. But all in all I believe the government should play a little bit more of a role than just contracts and defense, but I am torn because I think we should have more freedom too.
ReplyDeleteFelicia Hall
10:10-11
I like the idea of a libertarian government more so than that of an anarchy style government. Even though I like the idea of a libertarian government more, I feel that I am not a libertarian though. I personally feel like a libertarian government would be to small and weak for my likings. The government should have more powers than to just enforce contracts and to provide national defense. I do like these ideas, but I feel the government should control more areas in our life. The government having control and regulations over schooling is very important. With a libertarian government, you would not be able to receive financial aid or other school funding from the government. Receiving financial aid is important, because it helps people afford to go to college. I also feel that the government needs to be in control of a social needs system, to help out the poor.
ReplyDeleteIf the country was only in control of contract agreements and national defense, I think our lives would be different. People as a whole would be in charge of public roads and public schools. There is a chance that the roads might not be as safe as they are now without government being in control. For example, cracks, ditches, and possibly no speed limits could cause trouble to people. I could see a problem with giving people this much freedom. I believe to much freedom for anyone can become a big problem.
Grant Davis
PSCI 100:05
10:10-11 MWF
To be honest I agree with the libertarian perspective. I feel as that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they dont hurt or harm others. Same goes for the government. The 2 rules for a libertarian government i definitely agree. If the government was limited to enforcing contracts and providing for national defense i think it could worsen our society though. For public schools, education will worsen because of lack of government. And for the building of roads since the government isnt involved it would be our job to find people to build them
ReplyDelete-Lavonte Hights
PSCI 10:10-11
I do agree with the two basic keys to a Libertarian perspective but I also think if the government didn't help with public schools that education would hit rock bottom. Public education provides education to everyone from kids of parents that have money to kids of parents that don't have much money. It gives them a place to go and learn and most likely keep them out of trouble. For example, take Hagerstown, MD. Their are a lot of underprivileged kids that live in bad places in town and do nothing but get in trouble. Many people in our community have gotten loans and money from the mayor to build buildings and start after school programs for underprivileged kids to keep them out of trouble. If that isn't mutual aid and helping and providing for the community than I don't know what is. But in able for that to happen those people needed the money which came from the government. I feel that the government does do a lot of stupid things but they also help us in a lot of ways we don't see. Think of Shepherd University, they get their money from the state which comes from us paying our taxes to the government. But one major thing I don't believe the government should do is tell us how to live our lives. It's our life and our body I shall be able to eat whatever I want and marry who ever I want. Eating the things I want and marrying whoever I want doesn't harm or effect the government or the people around me therefore it should not matter.
ReplyDeleteAmber Myers
PSCI 100-05
No one has the right answer but Libertarianism is a major step in the right direction. I like the thought of no offensive war but that can also be a weakness. With the limited government I doubt that we would pay taxes, so things that we commonly use would dwindle such as environments, Roads, Bridges repairs and much more. The government should have more control over our life’s than libertarians think, this is the biggest problem because everyone has a million difference thought on what to do with the government but the only thing that we all have in common is that the government we have now can be improved.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you should give the people of the country maximum freedom. Government is too controlling and really control most aspects of our lives. I mean we arent even allowed to say anything we want. Just simple stuff like that. Government should only be allowed to do things when the people of the country cannot. Though government builds roads and bridges and fix up everything, i believe people can do that. That will just create more businesses and jobs for people of the United states.
ReplyDeleteLike anything else in life this would be a give and take idea. What I mean is that it would be great to live a life where the only involvement the govern't had in our lives but the draw back would be the fact that all the money things that our govern't gives us , like money for school, money for the old, ect, would not be there. So in many ways we would be happier because we would have more freedom to do what we really want to do, but there would be a lot of things we could no longer aford to do. Life would be much more different because only thoes people that was born into money or got lucky enough to make/get the money to go to school, for example, would have the money to buy the things we have now like high end cell phones.
ReplyDeleteLUKE EVERHART
Looking at libertarianism from the outside makes it seem like it would be the perfect way to get rid of our overbearing government system. I think it would be great if the government would let us live our everyday lives without any unnecessary involvement. On the other hand, we would be missing out on so many of the things that they provide us with, such as the public roads and education and what not. Unless it was a perfect society where all the rich decided to share and help take care of the less fortunate, the lower class people of the country would just be left out of luck. There would be no government assistance for them, and it would be harder for them to be able to make more money if they start out with very little. So while it seems like it may be nice to do whatever we want to do, I think that we are so accustomed to leaning on support from the government that libertarianism just wouldn't be successful in our country.
ReplyDeleteNatalie Reinford
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be dangerous to limit the government to just those two responsibilities after having such a strong government already. Too many people already depend on the government so much for things like public roads and healthcare and education. I do believe the government should be limited, but doing it gradually would be the best approach. An example of something that the government should stop getting involved in would be marriage and drug use. Those sorts of things are lifestyle choices, and giving more freedom in those areas would not harm anyone who currently depends on the government for survival.
ReplyDeleteGoverment is needed in our lives. If we had a weak goverment i think we would be a weak nation. Yes, there could be less government in certain areas. But i don't think society could handle a libertarian style of life
ReplyDeleteI believe the libertarian approach could be a very interesting experiment to under go. My thoughts are that areas would be forced to care and work in order to improve their own quality of living. I agree with the notion that the government should work using these two rules as a guideline in order to maintain safety for the nation as a whole. From my past experience though, when one is given the ability to make their life better and even more, they are the only one that can improve their life than that is what that person does. I like to believe I am this way along with a few friends from my hometown that I still stay in contact with. Through this ideology, I believe it could empower the populations to improve their communities or die off if they are lazy. It has an evolutionary idea to it where the best qualities will progress and the lazy and unsuited qualities will naturally die off because they are not improving their surroundings.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that limiting the government to only having those two functions is a sound idea, although it might immediately look good to those who may feel oppressed by current laws and regulations. Instead of completely abolishing laws in regard to how people live their lives, I feel that the reigns could be loosened, so to speak. I do like the idea of a non-offensive army, but the problem with that could be becoming isolated and potentially losing allies. Also, without government, the lack of taxation and gov't funding would be detrimental to infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc. I don't feel like the people are ready for the responsibility of governing themselves.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Gesford
PSCI 100:05
I agree with everything you said. I think it would be too much of a change for us to just immediately switch to a libertarian form of government. We could make slight changes that would move us towards a more libertarian form of government without sending everyone into shock.
DeleteMaggie Van Vliet
100:05
I definitely favor the idea of libertarianism and agree that, if we have to have a government, it should only serve a few roles. Parks, roads, and schools are payed for through tax dollars, so citizens are already funding these things by themselves. The absence of government control would not prohibit these facets from existing. People don't need the government to spend their money for them. Obviously, a libertarian system would effect a lot of everyday matters, but that doesn't mean that they would be changed for the worse. Public school isn't the only option available anyway--if private schools and charter schools are doing fine without the aid of tax dollars, I think a libertarian society would be able to fix something together for themselves. Humans aren't incapable of supporting themselves and each other.
ReplyDeleteJust because a libertarian society would be different, does not mean that it wouldn't be successful. I think people naturally assume that without a strong government, everyday life would crumble and fall apart. In reality, people are capable of using responsibilities given to them, and they don't need to be shepherd by some vague entity that they have no real interaction with.
Nanette Yessler
PSCI 100:04
9:10-10:00
In some aspects I could be considered somewhat libertarian. I do believe people as a whole should have some more personal responsibility and take control of their own lives, as apposed to the government "making sure" everyone's ok. I think that overall we would all be better with very limited, national security-based government in the long run. Yes there may be people that do not workout with that type of system, but I believe having liberty and freedom is worth more than false safeties and being coerced into situations by the government.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, the public roads are very well taken care of or funded in our current system in the first place. The government doesn't actually offer THAT many services to the public as a whole. But they do offer police brutality and control over our own personal and private lives.
Nathan Lewellyn
PSCI 100.04
The government should be less involved than right now, but little less than libertarians. The government stays involved in disaster, defense and criminal situations. Other than that the people will be able to control themselves for the most part Josh Hughes
ReplyDeleteI am 50/50 about my feelings on libertarianism. I honestly really like the idea that people would be able to do what they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone or other people’s property. On the contrary, if we didn’t have a government like we have right now, we wouldn’t be able to get financial aid, schools wouldn’t be funded, and public roads would be destroyed. We also wouldn’t have a very strong military, leaving us open to harm. Maybe too much freedom would turn out to be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteChris Grove
PSCI 100:05
10:10-11 MW
I don't really see any problems with this, provided people 'mind their own business' and are non-violent. At first it may seem there's some problems: some people are not capable of taking care of themselves, besides the physically or mentally disabled, but I think this would be a case where help is recognized as needed and volunteered by people who can.
ReplyDeleteUltimately though, if everyone maintained the ideals of libertarianism, to respect and tolerate others and take care of yourself, then society would be much better off.
in my opinion i think the government is fine the way it is now. you can argue that they keep peace and order and keep us safe. also if the government was limited to such, a lot of students would not be attending colleges because they wouldnt get financial aid or grants. i think people can still mind their own business and still be happy. people fail to realize what they would lose if the government was limited. a lot would change.
ReplyDeleteTre Anderson
PSCI100-04
9:10-10:00
After reading the positions of a libertarian, I find that I agree with majority of what they believe. I also believe that people should have the right to be with who they want, go where they want, and have very limited rules. The government should be not have any input in anything that would not affect whether or not the society will run smoothly. That being said, I don't agree that the government should have limited say in schools because, the government provides schools with the proper accommodations for students. Also without government intervention in schools how would you get grants and scholarships from the government to be able to increase your education. Government should have access to education because their should be a set guideline of what students need to reach each year. If you have all these different state or local standards our countries education systems will be on completely different levels. One thing I will say is that the government spends more time administrating test to students then actually trying to teach them the materials.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the libertarian is a great idea but because our country has had the govn't that we do have, the change over would be to hard for us to take. We as a whole ,in the USA, have become so use to having help from the govn't that I do not think it would work out very well to change over now. Basicly I feel we have been with a controlling govn't so long that we would completely fall apart if we was to change over. Although, that is what it would take for us to change over to a way of life where we are truly free.
ReplyDeleteLuke Everhart
I feel content with having a small form of government rather than a large over powering one. I don't think that Americans would be able to properly function if we took out the roles that the government has simply because it would be complete chaos. At the same time I don't feel as if we need an overbearing government system who looks over our shoulder every 5 minutes. In reading this I would have to say that all in all I agree with the positions of a libertarian and that people should have the freedom to do what they want and go where ever they want to go, just not complete and absolute freedom to the point where people are taking advantage of it.
ReplyDeleteErin Phelan
PSCI100 MWF 910-10