The day has come to discuss what is the most free civic stance. At the start of this class I would not be able to answer this however. For the first essay I had to write for this class I used the quiz website to find my civic stance, it was Libertarianism. However as the class has gone by my opinion on what is a more free stance has shifted towards Anarchy. Although there are many stances out there, compared to all, I feel as though Anarchy lines up with what I can classify as genuine freedom for the individual. As many of the others fall short in several ways and have several other blunders that can stop it from being the true sense of the word free. To the beliefs of equality that liberalism strives for, the limited government that conservatives
…show more content…
I said this earlier but when it comes to restraints, the only ones that should be there are the ones you put on yourself. This is very important when it comes to the people of today. A rule is a rule and just having one means that there is a huge issue, that issue being what is what. We liv in a era of participation awards, by that I mean that everyone has to feel like a special snowflake whether they are or not. The reason I bring this up is because of the one main rule Libertarianism has, that being you can do whatever you want, as long as it does not remove the freedoms of others. In this day an age I suggest that would be a very difficult task to decide what is overstepping that one boundary, Removing that one rule doesn’t seem outrageous due to the fact that you can’t abuse a rule if there is no rule. Humans are very consistent and they like to be consistent when iit comes to their daily lives, this is why going by their own rules will be better for them. They would want to remain with what they said and thus stick with it. Humans will love to cheat anything they can and will use the ambiguity of the rule to their own advantage. So by defining the rule for themselves is far more simple than going based on a single rule they must follow. Another quick note is the sense of community it can build, creating sub groups can really help build people and their sense of community to their own needs, not what a higher power wants or how they want you to work for their benefit. If there is also a thing to take out of anarchy, it is it doesn’t rely on the kindness of
I said this earlier but when it comes to restraints, the only ones that should be there are the ones you put on yourself. This is very important when it comes to the people of today. A rule is a rule and just having one means that there is a huge issue, that issue being what is what. We liv in a era of participation awards, by that I mean that everyone has to feel like a special snowflake whether they are or not. The reason I bring this up is because of the one main rule Libertarianism has, that being you can do whatever you want, as long as it does not remove the freedoms of others. In this day an age I suggest that would be a very difficult task to decide what is overstepping that one boundary, Removing that one rule doesn’t seem outrageous due to the fact that you can’t abuse a rule if there is no rule. Humans are very consistent and they like to be consistent when iit comes to their daily lives, this is why going by their own rules will be better for them. They would want to remain with what they said and thus stick with it. Humans will love to cheat anything they can and will use the ambiguity of the rule to their own advantage. So by defining the rule for themselves is far more simple than going based on a single rule they must follow. Another quick note is the sense of community it can build, creating sub groups can really help build people and their sense of community to their own needs, not what a higher power wants or how they want you to work for their benefit. If there is also a thing to take out of anarchy, it is it doesn’t rely on the kindness of