1.) Legalized gambling has expanded rapidly in the last decade in the United States. The latest venue to be developed is gambling over the internet. Those who are in favor of this, see it as a convenient form of entertainment that should be available to people if there is a market for it. They further argue that individuals can decide for themselves, using their own judgment, how much they can risk gambling and will suffer the consequences and learn from them  if they gamble more than they can afford to lose (the libertarian position). Others point out the problems associated with compulsive gambling in current locations and argue that internet gaming should be banned altogether because there aren't enough safeguards in place to protect against problem gambling and it is difficult for the government to regulate the payback rates, etc. What do you think?

2.) One of the concerns of many libertarians is that, in order to enforce the current federal drug laws, that the police power of the government has expanded and is therefore, threatening the 4th amendment rights of citizens  against illegal search and seizure, creating more harm with than enforcement than is caused by drug use.  Others argue that because of the potential harm and destruction caused by the effects on society of  illegal drugs, the government has an obligation to make a strong statement through  its laws against  drug use  to try to protect American citizens against their own weaknesses.  Where do you place yourself in this debate? How would you balance the rights of citizens to be protected from increased police power and the need to protect against the harm of illegal drug use?  Why?

3.) One of the  current solutions that many advocates are looking at as a partial solution to the problem of failing schools are expanding the use of vouchers.  These vouchers would allow low income parents who were unhappy with their children's schools to be able to send them to a private school which might  more sucessfully educate them.  The thinking is that if parents have a choice to pull their children out of  failing schools, those schools might have an incentive to improve their performance which wil ultimately benefit all children.  Critics of this position argue that vouchers can only serve a small number of students and that drawing money and motivated students away from troubled public schools will only make it more difficult for them to succeed. Providing more funds to failing schools is a better way to help all the students rather than market competition between schools. Where do you place yourself in this debate? Why?

4.) Many advocates are calling for the need to rein in huge corporations in order to keep the marketplace competitive  for small businesses and for entrepreneurs just starting out. Proponents of this view argue that it is impossible for a small company to compete against a gigantic company like Walmart even with a better product because Walmart resources allow for "low-balling" prices and its distribution network can quickly overpower a smaller business. Libertarians argue, in contrast, that more harm than good would come from government oversight of huge corporations and that a truly creative and innovative product can still survive. (The Netflix article is an example).  Where do you place yourself in this debate? Why?