Final Project

Libertarianism: Equality or Just a Fantasy?

            The subject of libertarianism is an interesting one, as it has more influence and it can affect people in more ways the one may expect. It’s ever growing in the United States. It has managed to develop one of the biggest third parties in American politics.  Their ideology is unique as they feel the best government is the one that does little to no governing in all aspects. I’m curious to how plausible this idea really is, as there haven’t really been any first world countries without some form of government involvement. In fact one could argue the United States is the closest government to be a libertarian one. I think if one was implanted we would notice low-income citizens suffering greatly.

            A libertarian government can be compared to a communist as in both the citizens are said to be equal in someway. Everyone is supposed to be in the exact same position in a communist government and they can’t for the most part move up or down on the social ladder. Everyone is said to have equal opportunity in a libertarian one, but the government doesn’t give them anything. The main difference in these equalities is that in a libertarian government people can have absolutely nothing, and will no help from the government, because it was equal opputinuity not equal everything. A libertarian government leaves too much up in the air and to many people at risk.

            In P.H. Bering’s book “Libertarianism the Economy of Freedom” he explains what libertarianism is. At the end of the book he gives several potential counter arguments to libertarianism. The very first one is “how about those who cannot fend for themselves?” (Bering 105) The book answers this question with “that there are not nearly as many of them as the ruling priesthood of social workers want us to believe.” (Bering 105) This stance goes very well with the idea of little to no government, as the government now helps out people, for reasons such as not having a job, not making enough to support themselves and their families and there are many other reasons. It should be noted that often people on welfare are not only fending for themselves, but also their children. It was found in Florida that ninety percent of those on welfare where single mothers, with between one and three children. (Welfare: fact vs. fiction) I’m confident this could be used as model for the rest of the United States. Right now those who grow up poor have a harder time gaining the opportunities those who grow up rich get, a libertarian government is just going to make it even harder as the poor will be even poorer then they are now.

(Projected Mean-Tested Welfare Spending. Heritage)

While it would be nice to be able to use this money for other purposes, the people who currently receive this money would be in a worse position as they don’t have the means necessary to take advantage of the opportunity that comes with a libertarian government.

            Libertarians believe that a government with less authority is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They claim their form of government gives people rights and they are “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. (Michan 121) But, really a libertarian government could deprive some people of both life and the pursuit of happiness. Today are definition of the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn’t much different then what they were in the eighteenth century. Life is defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary as “the characteristic, state or condition of a living organism.”(The American Heritage College Dictionary). With taking away some form of government there is risk of taking someone’s life, of course there is an opportunity for them to gain the means necessary to live, but for some people this just isn’t possible. Even if the number of people who rely on the government is small like Bering writes, it’s still some people, who have the right to life. The word pursuit is defined as “the act or an instance of chasing or pursuing” (The American Heritage College Dictionary) and the word happiness or happy is defined as “enjoying showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction or joy”.  (The American Heritage College Dictionary) With these definitions I believe it’s reasonable to assume “the pursuit of happiness” means something along the long the lines of having the right to seek what makes them content. If the only way a citizen can get this by depending on the government, they should be given essentials that will allow them to be content.

(John Locke)

It seems as though the Libertarians try to come off as appealing by trying to say what they want is what the Founding Fathers wanted. The Founding Fathers used “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” a condensed version of John Locke’s original quote, in the Declaration of Independence.

            There needs to be some form of regulation as things get neglected or they get overused because of one’s own self interest. David Boaz explains this well as he puts it that” when resources- such as a common grazing are, forest, or lake- are “owned” by everyone, they are effectively owned by no one. No one has an incentive to maintain the value of the asset or use it on a sustainable basis”. (Boaz 249) What this means is that when everyone has equal excess to something there will be no caring for its well being, they will want use the asset up for themselves quickly because otherwise others will use it.(Boaz 249) Boaz is actually arguing in favor of Libertarianism. What David Boaz is arguing in the quote is that instead of sharing something, one person should own it and everyone else who wishes to use it should pay for it. So instead of something being regulated by the government, the owner is regulating it and everyone else is at the mercy of the owner, at least in terms of how much they have to pay for whatever is in question. This is why it’s important for governments to have authority as the government isn’t on one groups’ side. The success of government regulation can be seen with illegality of monopolies. People can get a fair price because the government doesn’t allow one person or group to control an entire market.  With monopolies prices go up and the poor are the first to struggle and suffer. So, those who have trouble taking care of themselves depend on the government indirectly as the government indirectly forces companies to keep prices down. It can be assumed with no government monopolies with form quickly and prices would go up.

            While Libertarians drive home the fact that they are for people and they want equal opportunities for everyone, simple statistics show that it wasn’t meant to be. Americans really don’t want all of what the Libertarians want to give them. You really just have to look at the success of the Libertarian party here in the United States. The 111^th United States currently has five hundred and thirty five voting members, two of these are independents and the rest are either Republican or Democrats. This ideology can’t even gain momentum in one state or one congressional district. While these are just statistics there are plenty of people voicing their fear of no government control. In an article from LexisNexis by Sara Terry’s title “Libertarians: the third third party”. Its explained how “Americans say they want less government in their lives, the public is still not prepared to sweep away the majority of federal programs.” ( Terry par 4) From this quote you can see people are aware of their dependence on the government. Also this quote goes against what Bering claims about how not many people are dependent on the government.
2008 Election Results for 3rd Party and Independent Candidates

	Chuck Baldwin (Cst)	Bob Barr (Lib)	Cynthia McKinney (Grn)	Ralph Nader (Ind)
Reported % of popular votes	0%	0%	0%	1%
Reported # of popular votes	181,818	511,324	152,811	698,798

(2008 Election Results for Third Party)

These were the four most popular candidates after Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The Libertarian candidate came in fourth overall. While this may seem like an excuse to say that the Libertarians are doing well, it can be debated. Just over a half a million people supported the Libertarian candidate, the Libertarian party is trying to be appealing to everyone, and are not fighting for one cause like a typical third party. This helps show people do want some form of government regulation.

            The Libertarian may have some good ideas, but it seems as most of those are already taken place within the United States government and law.  It can come off as appealing as they do bring up good points that the Founding Fathers would advocate, but they are often taken out of context. If the Libertarian Party wants to help everyone they should listen to what the majority wants and that is some form of government regulation. There is just too much in question when it comes to a libertarian form of government and too much needs to happen for all of the pieces to come together. American citizens’ well being shouldn’t be put a risk for a new type of government.

Works Cited

2008 Election Results for 3^rd Party. ProCon.  Web. 30 Nov. 2010

American Hertiage College Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. Print.

John Locke. Quillp. Web. 30 Nov. 2010

Boaz, David. Libertarianism A Primer. New York : The Free Press, 1997. Print.

Bering, P.H. Libertarianism The Economy of Freedom. Berne: Peter Lang, 1995. Print.

John Locke. Quillp. Web. 30 Nov. 2010

Machan, Tibor R. Libertarianism Defended. Burlington: Ashgate, 2006. Print.

Projected Mean-Tested Welfare Spending. Heritage. Web. 30 Nov. 2010

Terry, Sara “ Libratarians: the third third party” 3 July. 2000. LexisNexis. Web 30 Nov 2010

“Welfare: fact vs. fiction” 10 Nov. 1995. LexisNexis. Web 7 Dec 2010

Unit 4 Peer Group Review- Darien Allen

You really seem to know how to get the readers’ attention at the beginning of your blogs. You did this is several different ways, not just one. One example is in “Centralized Government: the good, the bad or the ugly?” you get the reader interested by relating it to them. You do this by saying “if you search the internet” this is something  that  everyone who reads your blog could do and could get a better understanding to what you’re saying. Another thing that I liked about your blogs was your were able to get your personal beliefs and thoughts into the blog and add to it without dominating the entire blog wi.  An example of this in your blog “He Said, She Said, They said what?”. In this blog you explained the differences between men and women communicating and you were able to put a little bit of your experience into it, without taking away from the rest of the blog.

I would suggest making sure your citing correctly. It could get confusing sometimes whether it was your idea or someone else’s. An example of this is your blog “Popular Music”, its hard for me to tell whether or not these are your own ideas or you got these ideas or you’re got these from someone else. You do cite well in “Monogamy, Infidelity and Present Society”. I would use that as a reference if you need too.

The first blog that I thought was one of your “greatest hits” was “Cars… or Weapons of Not-so-Mass Destruction?” I thought the persuasiveness of this blog was amazing. You’re trying to get people to be to do less of what most think of as a right instead of a privilege. I think it worked because you didn’t demand for a complete stoppage. Also you had a personal experience that would make people think twice. Another blog of yours that I felt was a “greatest hit” was “Materialism: A Meaning Response”, I picked this one for your analysis of what Twitchell wrote. When I read his article I couldn’t take it seriously, but you were able to analysis what his was saying and put it into evening clearer terms. Another one I felt was a “greatest hit” was “Monogamy, Infidelity and Present Society” because throughout the blog I thought you did a very job in combining both arguments from the readings, and your opinion on the possibility of what the readings suggested.

Unit 4 Peer Group Review - Amity Connolly

After your reading your blog posts I think you are able to analyze what the reading is about very well. You are able to incorporate this well into your blog posts. An example of this is your blog post “Reap What You Sow” from September 30^th. I also like how you didn’t just stick with our textbook for evidence when writing your blog posts.  I think a good example of this is your blog post “Another Side of the foreign Worker”. In this you went and explored aspects of immigration and not just through the interview, you  research outside of  our textbook.

Something I would suggest is trying to break your sentences up. While not every sentence that is long is a run on, they can still get hard to read. I noticed that a lot of your sentences seemed longer than they had to be. I would suggest that if you notice your using a lot of commas, try to find places where two sentences could be made. It’s not the biggest deal in the world it just makes reading  and understanding easier.

The first blog post I thought of as a “greatest hit” was “Another Side of the Foreign Worker”. I explained already how I liked how you did additional research, but there were other things I liked about this post as well. You explained well what each thing was so the reader wouldn’t be lost. I had no idea what things like a H-1B visa was and I would have been lost had it not been explained. The next blog post I thought of as a “greatest hit” was “Reap What You Sow”. I felt this was a greatest hit because you where able to argue your point with support from several different directions. Also you were also able to defend your arguments with several different readings. Your third post that I would consider a “greatest hit” was “We the People” the reason for my interest in this post is you didn’t give the reader a straight answer, you made them think about it. I liked especially how you asked several questions, giving the reader several things to think about.

Week 12 Blog Reviews

Justin Vizcaino-  I thought your blog from November 4^th was very well written. It seemed to me that you know what you where talking about, and know more than just what was in the article.  Especially when you would take quotes from the reading and follow it by giving your explanation to what it means or what effect it has had. I thought you were able to transition from each paragraph very well especially the transition between the second and third paragraph. I would be careful in your citations though. I say this because, I was curious to what insider training was, I was looking for the quote you used, I could not find it on page 453. In you blog from the 2^nd, I thought it was interesting and impressive how you explained that libertarian government was intended to work by its founders, but it can’t with our current system of government.  You also transitioned from paragraph to paragraph very well, I liked how the sentence wasn’t exactly the same as the next paragraph, but it seemed to be similar.

Tarah- I liked in your blog “How Much is Too Much?” that you started off with a question and then answered it.I think it did two things it gained the readers interest and it explained what it was, as then they reader wouldn’t be lost, no matter what. While I think some explanation is good, I think maybe you did a little too much as the whole second paragraph is an explanation of what Sameer Parekh does. In your blog “Finances !“  I thought the way you summarized and explained what Finance was, was very well written.  I thought it was interesting how you explained how they carved their niche, and it was by figuring out equations to fit something that is very difficult to understand.  The only thing that I can point out is you were kind of inconsistent with your citations. It’s not a big deal as we don’t usually cite from the book unless it quotes, it was just kind of weird to see a citation at the end of the one paragraph and nowhere else.

It's Just Finance

It wasn’t long ago that field of finance came about. Finance branched off from economics right after World War II. Although it just recently came into its own, parts of finance have been around for many years. Before finance become what it is today, bankers or “moneychangers”, used similar but more complicated methods. An example being they often had to use more difficult forms of mathematics.

Risk is an important development to finance, it’s also very complicated. A part of its complexity is that there isn’t just one way to calculate risk. Over the years there have been many models and improvements to these models, used in attempt to figure out what the probability and risk of something really is.  Those involved in finance have been able to basically perfect their field, mainly because of the many improvements to the equations that were made, along with technological improvements. The main technological improvement being the computer.

Not only is finance figuring out the probability and risks that come with money, it’s also getting those who do it paid.  Because finance comes with a salary it has become something that people now desire. I think the number one reason anything would get into the world of the academy is if it can be something that makes money.  Another reason for it being in the world of the academy is its complexity and not everyone can do it and do it well. I believe this to be a reason because, there is very few things in the world of the academy that comes easy to everyone.

Another factor that has allowed finance to become what it is, is the human fascination with money. Along with the human fascination of money there is a fascination with those who know a lot of it. The article makes a statement about people buying books on finance, and how people “are in awe of those who know-or profess to know- a great deal about the subject” (Chance pg 447). This I think is really important social factor, that has benefited finance. Especially because for anything to survive their needs to be some form of interest in it.

Which is Better?

After reading the article and considering the views I developed from personal experience, I think I stand in the middle of both sides. I think going too far to one side or the other would bring benefits, but those benefits would be greatly outweighed by the negatives. That is why I think we need to have a mix of both policies. With a mix of both policies we can come close to getting what’s wanted from each side, but each would have to give up a little.

I think the libertarian side is a very good idea. My problem with it is it won’t work with the history human nature. There will always be those who aren’t honest or don’t care much about others and are willing to take advantage of them.  Of course there would still be laws against those who go too far it’s easier to keep them in check by keeping everyone on a little bit shorter leashes. The article mentions how many people who know computers and the internet don’t like laws.  I don’t think it would be a good idea to have fewer laws, when it’s already well known, that people take advantage of these laws, with only regard for themselves. Parekh and his company C2Net are really a perfect example of this. What they make, Cryptography  is used so people who want to do illegal things can get away with it. These illegal activities include insider trading and tax evasion. Those example were given in the article, I think the article gave some of the lesser crimes, ones were people don’t get physically hurt. Many times the police or the government are able to stop someone from harming someone else, or catch them after they do it, from traces the person left. With no government regulations, it’s going to be harder to stop or catch someone who is involved in these kinds of activities.

On the other hand I feel that there is something that can be considered too much government control and not only doesn’t work well, most people just won’t like it. Examples of too much government control can be seen in communist countries such as Cuba and North Korea. Nazi Germany is another example of too much government control. I’m sure most people in the United States would not want to live in those kinds of conditions. Overall, there are plenty of things that are enjoyable and people should have the right to do, without the government putting much regulation into it. What I think really makes everyone happiest possible without upsetting anyone to much, is giving each side some of what they want, but not all of it, similar to what we have now.

Week 11 Blog Reviews

Tasha Cerimeli- I was very intrigued by your blog from the 28^th. I liked how you focused on religion as one of the biggest contributions the Irish have made to our country. I think people forget a lot of what our country was built on including our economic policy was religion. The sequence of your paragraphs was very good. I thought this because when you ended each paragraph it seemed as though the sentence was giving a preview of what would be in the next paragraph, the best example is the transition between your second and third paragraph.  Although I liked the idea of how you explained religion and  its influence, I thought maybe should have given a little more on the Irish’s influence on economics, as it seemed like that’s what the reading and the question focused on.

Your blog from the 26^th was also well written.  Your argue your point very well. The way you compared and contrasted was very interesting. I thought you did a good job when you explained Twitchell idea’s and then you would state your opinion and point out what you didn’t agree with. I also liked you were able to incorporate your own personal experiences with materialism. I think giving examples like that really gives the reader a better feel, as I think a lot of the time the reader can relate with examples.

Justin Vizcaino- Something I liked from your blog from the 28^th, is how clarified what those who consider themselves to be Puerto Rican consider themselves to be Latino, because I myself was unaware of what they considered themselves. Something I thought it very interesting and something that people forget about, is that Puerto Ricans in America send a lot of their money back to Puerto Rico, making the number of American dollars circulating in United States get smaller. I was a little confused about your inclusion about the parade in New York City. You seemed to concentrate on their influence on the economy before and after your mention the parade, it just didn’t seem to go together.

In your blog from the 28^th you made some really good arguments to prove your side.  I thought maybe instead of just quoting the book, actually putting their arguments in your own words. When a quote is a sentence is by itself it often disrupts the flow of the the rest of the writing.