1.) One of the central elements of welfare state liberalism is the attempt to balance two  conceptions of freedom-negative liberty and positive freedom. Critics argue that it is impossible for a single political system to maintain both of these values since they are incompatible. That is, when the government ensures the positive freedom of one group of people, it is at the expense of the negative liberty of someone else. Others argue that in a complex, modern society, the best and most realistic political choicsystem would be to allow a balance between the two concepts.  What do you  think? Can there be a compromise? Give an example to illustrate your point.

2.) Critics argue that when the government takes over community functions (welfare assistance, for example), that it tends to alienate people from each other rather than strengthening interpersonal bonds by its bureaucratic nature and intrusiveness and by the coercion used to collect tax money. Welfare state liberals argue in return that the problems of society are too big for private institutions to handle and that only the government could provide these services, even if they do so imperfectly. If not for the government, people in need of assistance would be homeless and would be hungry. Critics argue, in return, that if the government did not provide these programs, that private institutions would be empowered to take over these functions again. Where do you place yourself in this discussion? Why? Give examples  to illustrate your points.

3.) The concentration of power in corporations was a danger to democracy, according to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the government, as servant to the people, was best suited to protect against the growth of monopolies which would wipe out the possibility of competition for smaller industries. FDR felt that there would be no possibility of "equality of political influence" for ordinary people if corporations became too powerful and influential in the running of the country. Currently, candidates running for office increasingly rely upon corporate contributions to fund their campaigns. While individual citizens can also contribute money to a candidate that they support, corporations provide the majority of the funding through "soft money" contributions and special interest donations. Does this ability of corporations to fund candidates lead to the same type of concentration of power that FDR warned against? If so, what is the impact on democracy and political equality of citizens, if any? What could government do to remedy this problem, if you see it as a problem?

4.) After the economic collapse of the Depression, the government assumed a permanent role in regulating the economy and in cushioning the effects of market adjustments for workers with unemployment insurance and for failing companies with tax benefits and subsidies. As "servant of the people", it was argued, the government should try to shore up failing companies because of the impact on the community and workers when they fail. But, critics argue that when the government intervenes, that it distorts the natural processes of success and failure embedded in the market, and it would be better in the long run to let companies rise or fall on their own merits. What do you think? Is it ever legitimate for the government to intervene? If so, how much is appropriate? If not, why not?

5.) Many argue that the federal government must expand its regulatory reach when it comes to ensuring that all Americans have access to the type of information that they need to make informed decisions. These critics argue that by allowing  private, for-profit media companies to have the role of dispensing information to the public,  the public gets "what it wants and not what it needs", with way too much emphasis on scandal and gossip and not on news analysis. They argue, instead, that the government should take over the public function of informing  citizens and not leave it up to privately-owned media companies? What do you think?