Finding the Golden Middle - Discussion on Libertarianism

            Libertarian anarchism is an ideology claiming that government is an "unnecessary evil" and should have only one function; protecting individuals. The central idea is that no man or a group of men have the right to aggress against the person or property of anyone else. In libertarian ideology, the center of all evil is the State. It commits mass murder, slavery and robbery, also known as war, conscription and taxation. Murray Rothbard is a libertarian anarchist, describing this ideology in an essay called 'For a New Liberty'. Thomas A. Spragens jr. expressed his reaction to this ideology in his essay called "The Limitations of Libertarianism". He opposes Rothbard by saying that we, as members of community, owe something to one another and to our country. There should be a strong sense of community, and civic duty. Another thing he claims is that libertarians tend to oversimplify and abstract important concepts, like freedom. I find it important to look at both views neutrally and then figure out the 'golden middle'. .
             In every ideology, one of the key concepts is the concept of freedom. In libertarianism, the right to freedom is the moral right of individuals. Freedom is to do whatever one chooses, as long as it doesn't aggress against anyone else (the 'my freedom ends at your nose' idea). Spragens finds this view oversimplified and abstract. What does it exactly mean to do whatever you want? He thinks that freedom should be more an 'autonomy' of an individual. Individual should have a chance to do what they want, not just the freedom. And that is where government steps in. Along with allowing certain freedoms, it provides a chance for those who are somewhat unable to sdo as they wish, which makes us obliged to it. He also find that this idea of freedom does not take into consideration our currently shaped society and the obligation we have towards it.