The issue analyzed by this paper is whether or not the United States government should be able to have more control of every aspect in our society. An analysis of this issue is important because as a society, we should acknowledge that the way we are living now is not necessarily the "right" way or the way we are meant to live. In our society, for example, we have many laws and rules that we must follow. Many laws have been created without majority vote or societal approval. These laws are meant and implemented to protect us, but is it not safe to say that each enactment could be contested to see if it was a necessary decree? It would be fair to debate--which is the whole point; we must determine what is right for us and/or for each other. Hospers and Marx have addressed the issue of governmental control. Hospers argues for less governmental interference. Marx, on the other hand, appreciates a more controlling government.
             My position is that we need a temperate measure of governmental control. This position seems correct because without some control and laws, I believe that there would be chaos. With too much control, however, people are oppressed and creativity is stifled. My opinion is more similar to the position taken by Hospers than that of Marx.
             Hospers addressed the issue of whether or not governments should have complete control over every aspect of society by arguing that society should receive minimal governmental control. He thinks that the function of a government should be strictly for the protection of human rights. Human rights would include the right to life, to liberty, and to property. The only role of the government would be to protect individuals from other individuals that would harm them in any shape or form, i.e., murder, assault, fraud, etc. Any laws in regards to protecting individuals from themselves or laws that require individuals to help one another would be abolished. He wri...