I agree with you on the natural competition and the "survival of the fittest" and believe that the
strong will have certain privileges that other will not. Although the strong should assist those
who are weak rather than having them suffer. I slightly disagree with your belief on the laissezfaire capitalism, because the government should not have to receive a portion of my pay
through income tax. However I do agree that the government should interfere when a business
is taking advantage of others and/or hurting the environment.
1) I think it's very beneficial to support the people who are inclined to do business and can
handle it very well. These people are the ones who will take businesses to the next level and
improve them. However, I don't agree with leaving the poor and less fortunate unsupported. I
think they should get help and resources to provide them with the knowledge they need to
become significant contributors to society so they can learn to expand their enterprise.
2) I partially agree and partially disagree with Herbert Spencer's view on government. He is
right about limiting government intervention. The government should not be involved in
making all the important decisions for a company or business. The owner should have the right
to make whatever choices he wants. I do think that the government should still provide some
sort of aid so a business owner or worker can lean on them for support in times of need. They
wouldn't be making all of the choices but just helping people with financial aid, etc. The
government still needs to protect its citizens and this limited, yet present form of intervention
allows for equal opportunity for all social classes.
3) I would not support laissez-faire capitalism in the United States today. This system would
allow citizens higher on the social ladder to exploit its consumers, and the people in lower
social classes would not be protected by the government in any business dealings.
I agree with you on Spencer's view on the government and I liked how you looked at his view
through a negative and positive aspect. While government regulation is good for businesses
because they would be able to protect citizens from being abused by companies and protect
the rights of business owners. However, some limits could be put on government interference
so that business owners could make their own decisions for their companies without the
government being a constant voice for them.
I totally agree with your response for the third prompt. Although little interference means more
freedom, that freedom could- and most likely would- be used to exploit workers. While I don't
believe the government should meddle in business's affairs, it is a necessity to maintain a set of
regulations/restrictions and guidelines in order to protect the working class.