> Since I'm basically a libertarian, I don't exactly buy it. I had a hard time with a lot of the questions. For example-should a company's only priority be towards profit? Morally speaking, no, but I firmly believe that the government should not be interfering and making those choices. It's the difference between what I'd do as a CEO or a politician. It's one thing to set a moral course for yourself, another thing to judge another's, and another thing to try to impose it on someone else.

This is an interesting facet of Libertarianism that I don't entirely get. If I understand the basic tenant of the Libertarian philosophy, it is, "Everyone should be free to do what they like so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others." The government's job is essentially to stop those who would violate this tenant.

I would assume that this would hold true for corporations as well as individuals. As such, there needs to be some governmental control on corporations to ensure that they don't violate my rights. I believe it is my right to compete fairly in a free market, so abusing monopolistic powers or something like this would be wrong (and as such would require the government to take action against any corporation doing this). I also feel it is my right to breathe clean air; this would then imply that it is the government's job to enforce some environmental regulations.

There are many situations in which it would be in the best interest of a corporation to kill all competition and/or throw the environment to the wind while manufacturing a product. However, a corporation should not have the right to do either because it infringes upon the rights of others.

My point is that these are certainly instances in which the government *should* be "be interfering and making those choices" (to use Mark's phrasing), even when viewed from a Libertarian perspective. Thoughts?

Ste "Largely a Libertarian when it comes to matters of personal freedoms, if nothing else" phen