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  (9/26/01) in class.
    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.) One of the central tenets of classical liberal thought is that humans, by virtue of having the capacity to reason, should be free as much as possible to make their own decisions without the need of a government to make decisions for them. This is one of the central themes in the "wise use" movement  which calls for the rolling back of environmental regulations in order to allow the individual property owner more freedom to decide how to use his or her land. The assumption is that most environmental regulation is unnecessary and places undue burdens on a property owner who can be trusted to make "wise use" of his/her property without government interference. Do you think this line of reasoning is valid in 2001? Why or why not?

3.) Locke argued that the mixing of one's labor with nature is the basis for the moral ownership of property. He also argued that because of the effort put into developing property by the owner and his desire to protect it, that property owners would be the most stable and wise voices in a community.  Locke, however, envisioned property owners as small entrepreneurs who lived in the community in which their property was located and contributed to its upkeep, which  was the model of the middle class in the era in which he wrote. Does this model still hold true in contemporary times when much property is acquired through inherited wealth, when there is no consensus on "land use" decisions, and property owners could also be large corporations working for the benefit of stockholders who live elsewhere? Why or why not?

4.) 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. Recently, efforts have been made to regulate the internet in a couple of ways: a.)  controlling pornography, b.)   trying to protect the intellectual property rights of certain authors or businesses, and c.)  trying to control consumer fraud.  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?

5.) In response to the terrorist attacks lat week, many governmental leaders, most notably John Ashcroft (Attorney general) are calling for increased governmental surveillance--wire taps without a warrant, intercepting email messages, scrutinizing legal immigrants---in order to protect citizens. Many civil libertarians argue that by allowing that much government interference in the lives of citizens, that we are giving up our freedom, our way of life. 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?