This is the first set of questions for Introduction to Theory (820-250) and they each concern an aspect of Classical Liberalism and its application in contemporary times. Please choose  one question and write a response to it. The responses should be about 2 pages long (approximately) and can be hand-written if that is easier for you and if your hand-writing is legible. I will collect them next Wednesday  (9/24/03) in class for section 1 and in class on Tuesday, 9/30/03 for section 2.
    Remember that there is no right or wrong answer to any question. I will only be looking at the points you raise and how well you argue your position.

1.) In Locke's theory, a person's religious beliefs are considered to be a completely private matter, with no governmental interference at all. He also felt that in order for everyone to have true freedom in the private sphere, that there would be a need for political tolerance of an individual's choice of religious practice and life style. In the era in which Locke was writing, however, there were strong social and cultural controls in place to effectively limit the freedom of private choices for individuals. In contemporary times, social and cultural codes have relaxed a great deal while political tolerance for variation in life style and religious beliefs continues which allows much more personal freedom for individuals than Locke ever envisioned. Do you think there is too much personal freedom in contemporary times? Should the government actively begin to support certain values and religious beliefs and enact them in policy to limit this freedom? Why or why not? (Feel free to use a specific example if you choose to illustrate your point).

2.) Locke argued that the  ideal economic system is "free market" capitalism in which every person has an equal opportunity to compete, and the rewards will reflect how well that person competed against other entrepreneurs, and that government regulation will interfere with the natural logic of the market.  Others argue that in a late capitalist world, dominated by huge corporations, made bigger through mergers, that government regulation is the only way to allow any competition for a new business.   Where do you place yourself in this debate? Will it do more harm than good to have government regulation, or is some containment of major corporations the only way to keep a "level" playing field for small businesses? Why?

3.) The internet is one of the few areas of American society which somewhat reflects classical liberal ideas; i.e., it is expanding rapidly, yet is still largely unregulated with users determining what is successful and what fails. There is also a lot of opportunity to expand and a lot of opportunities to put new ideas into practice with the "frontier" still left to explore.  Recently, there has been a call for political efforts  to regulate the internet in a couple of ways: a.)  controlling pornography and unwanted spam, b.)   trying to protect the intellectual property rights of certain authors or businesses, especially cracking down on music-sharing programs like NAPSTER and KAZAA.  Classical liberals would argue that, instead of  the government stepping in, that  the internet should be left alone to be regulated by its users. They argue that over time, many of the abuses will be weeded out by responsible users. Others argue that the potential for damage is too high and it must be regulated by government. What do you think?

4.) In response to the very real possibility  of another terrorist attack,  many governmental leaders, most notably John Ashcroft (Attorney general) are calling for increased governmental surveillance --wire taps without a warrant, keeping a centralized data base of information about citizens,  intercepting email messages, detaining legal immigrants---in order to protect citizens from further attacks.   Many civil libertarians argue that allowing that much government interference in the lives of citizens means  that we are giving up our freedom, our way of life, the right not to be interfered with. Where do you place yourself in this debate? Is the increased security necessary even if it infringes on the negative liberty of citizens, or will we lose more than we gain?