# data[].attributes.headline
Also A Moral Case Against Big Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Also A Moral Case Against Big Government

# data[].attributes.body
This article piece was fantastic in explaining the purposes of government. One of the main ideas i gained from it was that government is not responsible for everything but that it'a main purpose is to simply protect its citizens from injustices. When we reach up to government to provide us with everything we need or want, free schooling, healthcare, financial aid, etc. we undermine many of the already existing institutions already equipped to help us. These can include namely our families but also friends, neighbors, religious institutions, non-profits, etc. Furthermore, heightened dependence on government reduces our connections with our fellow citizens in that though government programs can help in a physical/financial way, they do not provide the emotional element of genuinely connecting with compassionate people here to help us. "Not only does increasing the funding for government programs not generate more compassion among citizens, but it can create unhealthy dependence on government on the part of recipients."

# data[].attributes.body
One big point that I agree with from the article “A Moral Case Against Big Government: How Government Shapes the Character, Vision, and Virtue of Citizens” was that in order to form a good democracy/government and communities, virtue is a critical component in all of it. The governments main focus is to oversee order and justice among citizens and to do that there needs to be a great level of virtue/morals. A more virtuous government also leads to more trust in the government from the society. There also has to be a great deal of virtue among the people in order to have better communities, better opportunities and lives. This relates to current government/politics because as we are gearing up to find a new president, virtue is a great thing to look for when looking at all of the presidential candidates.

# data[].attributes.body
"Which is to say, we know of no human community whose members do not have a vision of perfection—a vision in which the frustrations inherent in our human condition are annulled and transcended".
I actually disagree with the above quote. Those people which are the most "rational" would be the type of people whom do not dream of perfection, but rather of the nature of humans. The piece in here about the cemetery should not have been surprising. The mind will naturally blank out anything it can not understand or something it is scared. Which is why people often cannot remember a traumatic event with detail or can remember it so vividly. The world needs to start being more "rational" and seeing things as they truly are if we ever wish to achieve a true Utopian. Yet, here I am dreaming of a Utopia where people are realist and rational. Humans may be able to be rational for a short bit of time, but human nature is to turn to irrationality and dream of something better.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discussed how government should be limited in it's power. it discussed ideas on how best to limit an overarching and large government. It also discussed how citizens should work with their government. I thought this was an interesting read, and found myself agreeing with a lot of the main points.
However, one thing I disagreed with was the concept that it is problematic to want a government to be a provider. I disagree with this. I think while it can be damaging if a government provides too far and oversteps boundaries, a fair government providing bare essentials for citizens can outright better their quality of life.
One thing I agreed with was that virtues can be recognized by a government. Similar to how Ryan mentions that the founding fathers knew religion and communities were always going to influence, I think that still applies today.
I think this article applies to our government today. Many voters are calling for a smaller and less invasive governing system and while this can be one way of going about it, I'm not sure it would work out best for America.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talked about how a big government should operate and how it control over the people should be restrained or limited. It talked about government at the federal level and the state level, and the difference between the two. It talked about how we can make sure that the government is not abusing its power, by inserting the checks and balances policy within the government system. It then went on to talk about religion and the different ways religion can be beneficial to the "Moral Order" of the world.
Often times the article refers back to the founding fathers and their words of how government should be operated. I thought that it was interesting that so often the author refers to the backbone of our government. Very clearly in the quotes of the founding fathers, we could see how tentative they were about making sure government did not have to much power. If you think about it though, the founding fathers had just come from a time of tyranny, and that is why their families moved to America, was to get away from the king.
This is a very relevant article when it comes to today's time. Today we see certain politicians trying to take things away from us like the second amendment. They are trying to completely disregard the second amendment, and I think that comes into question of what is to much power, and what is to little.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "A Moral Case Against Big Government: How Government Shapes the Character, Vision, and Virtue of Citizens", the Author Ryan Messmore explains how the size of government has moral implications on society. How our assumptions and expectations has allowed expansion of government programs, taking responsibilities away from the citizens and creating various moral dilemmas in the process. I especially agree with the Authors perspective on government programs taking the place of local, non-government initiatives, thus creating a nanny state. This leads to an entitlement mentality by many of those who receive those social services. Whereas if received by local community organizations, people would be gifted a sense of compassion and dignity from their assistance. This promotes personal connections and strengthens moral fiber in a community, uplifting those in need and potentially creating opportunities they may not otherwise have experienced. There will always be a need for government, but where it is not needed, it does not belong.
While reading this article, I couldn't help but think about the current political, economical and social situation we find ourselves in with regards to the pandemic. Big government is here once again to bail out corporations who didn't anticipate financial problems. There is panic buying because a lot of people have been lulled into a sense of security. Have we not been disappointed by FEMA and other government agencies in the past. I hope local state governments can learn from these events and implement some future safeguards and provisions for their communities.

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses government and the people regarding how they should interact and who should have the power. The author says that an affective government is one that can execute, but is limited in doing so. The author thinks that big government is not the answer to the question of what type of government is good for the people. The article made sure to touch on the disadvantages and advantages of big and small governments, I was surprised to see it was not just a whole article stating negatives about big government. The author thinks that some things are better suited for local governments in times of need, and I agree. The local government is better suited to assess needs and provide personal assistance than the federal government since they are in the area and can have interaction with the people. I would much rather trust my state or city level government to anticipate and fulfil my needs than the federal government.

The author thinks that in order to foster virtuous citizens religion and family institutions is required. He said that providing this form citizens form a young age creates citizens who “fulfill moral obligations towards each other and thus sustain ordered Liberty”. This I do not think is necessarily true I think that family is definitely a driving force in raising virtuous citizens, but religion is not required to do so.
I personally think that the federal government should not be so large, I think that laws and political issues that have a very widespread affect should be handled by the federal government. While the states have the ability to set policy and laws that help their states the best, since they would know the needs of their people better.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Purpose and Limits of Government by Roger Pilon

# data[].attributes.subject
The Purpose and Limits of Government by Roger Pilon

# data[].attributes.body
This article discussed the Founders’ conception of the purpose and limits of government. It discusses how the Founders set forth a powerful moral vision of individual liberty, individual responsibility, and limited government—a government limited to securing our rights. The article goes on to break down the term “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” into detailed sections. It discusses how the Founders designed the Declaration of Independence to be a tradition of natural law and how it is whether we are servants of government, beholden to it for our rights, or government is our servant, beholden to us for its powers and that issue later manifested itself into the Constitution.

Something that I disagree with in this article is the statement “The rewriting of the Constitution without benefit of amendment, goes far toward explaining how political forces bent on expanding government have been able to do so in the face of a document written plainly to prevent that” (Pilon, 1999). This is pretty much saying that by initiating “general welfare” practices into our government, we have gone against what the original Constitution was trying to prevent. I disagree with that because I personally believe that welfare is necessary to supplement, for a period of time, what an individual or family cannot obtain on their own.

This article relates to current government because we live in a very polarized society. Whereas a citizen is either Republican or Democrat and few are in between. The spectrum of liberal to conservative has been stretched to the limits. Every 8 years, we get a new president and we tend to alternate between a republican president and a democratic president. I think this is because too much of one makes us want the other. If only there was a happy medium.

# data[].attributes.body
The article was very informative and well detailed. The title was very interesting it made me want to read what the article is about. Just by reading the introduction of the article  I wanted to read more and find out what it was all about. I personally think that the article was mostly focusing on what makes government a good government for citizens. Like on the first paragraph of the article the   author said that" A good but limited government is one that serves its citizens by exercising well its particular task and refraining from other tasks" I agree with that because as a government you need to be able to prove for your citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
This document goes into a lot of detail about the Declaration of Independence and what it took for it to come into existence. The document that has inspired countless millions around the world was drafted in 1776 and it is still in place to this date. This declaration was written in a way as to put limits on government control. It was meant to also give freedom to those who lived here. One of my favorite lines in the article is this: “the Founders distilled their philosophy of government: individual liberty, defined by rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, secured by a government instituted for that purpose with powers grounded in the consent of the governed”. What I got from reading this article is that it was stating all men are “morally” equal. Basically, saying that no person's moral choices are more important than another person’s choices. The other main idea of this article that I got, is that the purpose for a government is so it can protect the freedom of its individuals to have the freedom it needs in order to make those moral choices without fear of the government or anyone else interfering with those choices. I agree and disagree with that fact that we are able to have the freedom of speech, but I feel like there are boundaries’ that shouldn’t be crossed. There is so much HATE out there and I hear all the time how people use their “freedom of speech” to spread hate and bully. Like I was watching the bachelor and it was brought up that people are telling the women on these shows that they are a waste of society and should kill themselves. It seems like lines are being crossed and words can hurt. It’s sad that cyber bullying is a thing and it is costing lives because of how bad it is getting.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about government, its citizens, and how they are intertwined and work together as one. It touches on a good government and a limited government. It makes cases for why big government is good for some things and why local / state governments are good for other things. I liked how this article talked about the differentiation between big and little governments and how the pieces are ideally supposed to work together for the greater good of everyone. The article stated "As Americans, we tend to place high value on the goods of freedom, prosperity, and security. The habits needed to achieve these goods include trust, cooperation, self-sacrifice, hard work and a sense of responsibility for others (Messmore)". I find this true that a lot of people take pride in themselves and their freedoms and definitely want limited government in some forms. But I also have to remember that big government is responsible for our protection (federal prisons), basic freedoms and national security and defense among many many other things that are different from what our state and local government do. This article relates to current government and politics in so many ways, especially right now with an upcoming election as well as issues with the Covid-19 and the need (maybe) for government intervention like marshall law and quarantine, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing that hit me right away when disagreeing is when they said “ all men we created equal” it talks more discussing that there are moral equality, and just going back and looking at history you can simply tell this here is not true.

“each of us has a right not to happiness but to pursue happiness as he sees fit. They did not tell us how to go about that pursuit — save for the premise of equality, which entails the obligation to respect the equal rights of others to 8 their own pursuits. Rather, the determination of how to pursue happiness is left to us, to our own subjective lights, our own values. “ this stated, not sure if I just really liked the saying itself, but I think this was somewhat relatable when you look at in a perspective of it a “it’s 2020- whatever makes people happy” now, 2020 isn’t always used, 2019, 2018 etc. were all used as we each decided to mind our own business and allow people to be happy as they choose to express themselves and however they choose to dress as long as it was in a respectful manner and I feel like this was something applicable.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.subject
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses the relationship that a government should have with its citizens. The author says that we want a good government that can execute tasks well, but it has to be limited.  Some things are better left to local governments when in a time of need, and that's why limitations need to be in place, especially on the federal government.  In times of need, like now, local institutions are suited for helping with personal assistance. These institutions can make personal connections with citizens, something the federal government can't do when they are so far away with so many people to take care of.
In his writing, the author states that "America's Founders recognized that the fundamental institutions of family and religion, as well as local associations, were best suited to foster virtuous citizens who fulfill moral obligations toward each other and thus sustain ordered liberty."  I disagree with the fact that religion is needed for families to foster 'virtuous' citizens who are good people.  The best way for virtuous citizens to be raised up is by providing them with good morals and drive.
There are many ways that this article relates to the current government and politics.  Politicians advocate for more governmental control all the time, and in many cases, this affects people's lives greatly. This is not always a bad thing, but sometimes there can be too much governmental power.

# data[].attributes.body
This document does an excellent job dissecting the constitution and highlights some of the most important reasons it was created. The declaration of independence was drafted in 1776 and has been kept in place ever since. This declaration was set to put limits on government control and give freedom to the people who live under it. This document has stood the test of time due to the founding father thinking ahead to combat any future threats they fore saw such as the government getting too powerful. While I agree with most statements in this article such as freedom of speech,  the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,  I do not agree with everyone being created equally. This states that all men are created equally under natural law and no one is to be seen as superior or greater than anyone else in the value of a life. If all men were truly equal there would not have been slaves around the time this was created. On top of this, one can not truly attempt to achieve their pursuit of happiness while being imprisoned by someone viewed as above them. This is now relevant today because we are no longer divided amongst each other in terms of obtaining success. One of the greatest qualities of this country is the diversity and equal opportunities provided for us if you are willing to work hard to achieve happiness.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, it talks about the Declaration of Independence. Basically, the government was made to help protect us and our rights, and that the government was made to serve us as well.
I agree with the author in the fact that we do have freedom of speech. We are free to speak out against our government, whereas in other countries, there might be consequence in even questioning in the wrong doing of their government.
The thing I disagreed with is the portion of the Declaration that says "all men are created equal." This was clearly not true back when they wrote this, because our founding fathers still had slaves and Natives were still being forced out of their homelands.
This relates to politics today because so many people are divided with their political views right now. Yes, we may have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean we have freedom of consequence. Just because you may have a racist, homophobic, sexist, or just an outdated view of the world, and you speak about it and use "freedom of speech" to back it up, it doesn't really mean that you have freedom of consequence.

# data[].attributes.body
This article lays out the way the government should work, but how we should limit it's power. It explains that the role of government should be to carry out justice and pursue good, but we should be wary of tyranny. I think that this is an interesting take on our government and I think we in the US are in a unique situation due to our size and the way the states operate. There are essentially fifty small governments under a larger umbrella government and this means that we have had to put up all sorts of checks and balances both on the state and federal level.
I think we can also see the fears and anxieties of the founders in the way power is disbursed throughout the government. They were fearful of another all powerful monarch and as such broke up power so as to keep it out of the hands of one single person.

I personally don't really know where I fall in terms of the size of the federal government. I think that while many decisions should be left up to the states as they know the needs of their people better, it is possible for rights and liberties to be kept from people due to the type of government. We see this today with abortion, and before the supreme court ruling, gay marriage. It's a very delicate balance of giving the federal government power to ensure the rights of every American, but not to give the federal government too much power. It is really something to ponder.

# data[].attributes.headline
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.subject
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.body
Kristol's article on Utopianism was very interesting. I enjoyed the fact that he talked about how dreaming is such a huge part of what separates humans from animals. What really struck me was when he brought up the fact that when we dream about cities, or higher ups city plan, we don't really think about cemeteries. It seems odd that cemeteries would not be included due to the fact that they have been and will always be a necessity. When you are dreaming you don't always see the rational and practical things that you should take into account. That is kind of the fun part about dreaming, you don't think about the real world but a better one. A true Utopia can never really be achieved though, we can only dream. Why? Utopia on earth is impossible because of human nature--sin nature--will mess it up.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks a lot about the meaning behind the Declaration of Independence and why it was so necessary for the people it was made for. The main focus is about how no man is greater than anybody else and that the government is made in order to help and serve the American people. It goes on about the whole unalienable rights ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also focuses on how freedom is letting others do as they want and receive the consequences regardless of if others think it is good or bad. I do agree with how the author talks about the unalienable rights and how people are free to do or say what they wish because the constitution was meant to give the people freedom and the ability to live the way they want while still maintaining order through laws. This is relevant today because there is a big debate on whether hate speech falls under freedom of speech or not. A majority of people agree that hate speech is harmful to others and that it should be punishable under the law or censored in some way. Others think that, although harmful, falls under free speech even if others are offended. The one thing both sides can agree on is that if somebody says something out of hate for another group of people they aren't free from the consequences of saying those things and will most likely receive backlash at one point or another.

# data[].attributes.headline
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.subject
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.body
This article was interesting, it states "Utopias existed to produce better political philosophers, not better politics. True, the existence of better political philosophers might, at some point, have a benevolent effect upon the society in which they lived. But the odds were overwhelmingly against it" and "The trouble with living in a bourgeois society which has domesticated its utopian spirit is that nothing is permitted to go wrong—at least very wrong, for very long"-I disagree with this, utopian societies look to improvement for everyone, nothing ever goes as planned in life and I think utopian societies gives goals, hope and direction to the people and government and it talks about how there is more bitterness in our society-what is each person doing to contribute to the good of others? to create positives goals toward a utopian society. A utopian society can never be reached because as people we make mistakes and we are not perfect, but if we all can do 1 act of kindness or something to better the world. It would be closer to that utopian society and helping others. People are selfish IMO at heart and if we encourage others to think of 1 thing they can do to better their community-our world would change drastically.
How it relates to American Politics today? More equality from our government and more things paid for by the government so there is no discrimination. The Equality Act that was approved May 17th 2019 bans discrimination against LGBTQ, also Bernie Sanders push for free college and Medicare for all. These are directions toward a utopian society.  Perfectionism is the goal in a utopian society and having everything equal and available for every citizen, I think our government is trying to choose what is best for all our citizens and trying to help out with what they struggle with the most. Cutting out people responsibility to pay for college, healthcare would help every equally and tremendously
https://img.haikudeck.com/mg/A8DE0DCB-7846-4A8D-B69A-1E4E425C1029.jpg

# data[].attributes.headline
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.subject
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.body
This article was a little intriguing it talked about how all of us have adopted some form of utopianism at some point in our lives. It supports that information by stating that everyone dreams of a shiny new city or a place where they can live at and they have no problems to worry about. Think about it as the way that you would think if you won the lottery, we've all dreamed about winning millions of dollars, whether or not we would tell our family members, what we would spend it on, etc. Kristol talked about one thing for me that was really perplexing, he talked about the fact that whenever someone dreams about a Utopia they never dream about cemeteries. No one ever thinks about what would happen if you die. I think thats the main thing that I disagree with in this article, as funny as it sounds I just watched Avengers Infinity War, and Avengers Endgame and Spoiler Alert; the villain Thanos obliterates half the population in the galaxy and essentially creates his own utopia but they do have mass graves for the people that were killed in Thanos' quest for "peace and tranquility." This relates to the U.S government currently because that's what they are always constantly trying to provide, that utopia mindset. Which is why we have things like "the pursuit of happiness" or the "American Dream" to create that sense that if we work hard enough we can create our own utopia.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.subject
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the role and relationship government should have with its citizens. As the title suggests, the writer argues against  an expansive government state and dwells into the consequences of government expansion on its citizens lives. I agreed that local institutions are better suited for providing personal, financial and physical assistance in times of need. These institutions address the human spirit through personal and holistic means, something the government can't fix by granting impersonal checks that don't address the problem. I also agree with the notion of owing a moral obligation to each other as a means of virtue and character formation. I can see why the introduction of government to do all these things that were once supposed to be served by local institutions could be seen as weakening social bonds as government can not fulfill these voids the way smaller organizations could.
What I disagree on is the idea that religion is needed for all this to happen. I don't think anyone needs to be religious in order to have moral obligations to each other as it can derive from intrinsic beliefs and motivations. Personally, I think it can be brought up through a sense of duty and commitment.
How this article relates to current government and politics. Politicians advocate for bigger government all the time, in many cases it has to do with intervening with peoples lives. I don't think this is a necessarily bad thing as many people do need the help. However, I don't believe more government is the answer to everything. People need to look out for each other in a communal relationship which can truly serve people and get them out of there struggles.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.subject
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.body
When first reading the title of this article, I thought this would be strictly an attack on big government. I was surprised to understand that this article mainly pointed out early on that government has a purpose and its purpose is to impose and enforce laws. I would agree with the author but at the same time disagree because I don’t believe that the government should not be completely in charge of initiating and making laws. I think that for everyone to be on the same page about the laws being enforced, they should also be allowed a voice in what laws we have.

A perfect example of this is with guns and politicians who threaten to take away our second amendment. The second amendment was created to empower the people as well as protect the people. Going against this would be unconstitutional in many ways and thus reinforce the fear of a tyrannical big government. Government has no right to attempt to remove guns from law abiding citizens because they believe them to be a threat.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Purpose and Limits of Government by Roger Pilon

# data[].attributes.subject
The Purpose and Limits of Government by Roger Pilon

# data[].attributes.body
The main argument in this article is about the basis of the Declaration being laid in two main ideas: men are all morally equal meaning that no person's moral choices are more "important" than another's and that the purpose of the government is to protect the process of individuals making their own decisions without interfering with the choices of others. The claims made by the Declaration of Independence are that that the English Kingdom had overstepped its limits in coercing the colonists into submission against their wills. With this reasoning, the colonies decided that they were not going to allow the British to rule over them anymore is they had anything to do about it.
I agree with the first premise of this argument, that the moral decisions of one person are no more important than the decisions of another. We all have the right to exercise our free will, " the only proviso is that, as we chart our courses, we respect the equal rights in others to do the same" (Pilon, 1999).
I find this to be a very crucial point in modern politics considering the plans that Leftist Bernie Sanders wants to propose as president. The whole premise of socialism is taking from the rich to feed the poor. This is something that goes very perpendicularly against the very foundations of this country in that the fruits of one's labor is given to another without his or her consent. It goes completely contrary to the ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Reference
Pilon, R. (1999, December 15). The Purpose and Limits of the Government. Retrieved March 11, 2020, from https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/cl-13.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.subject
Utopianism, Ancient and Modern by Irving Kristol

# data[].attributes.body
This Article was interesting and definitely caught my eye. See we are still dreamers, we have visions still of what we want in life and in our society and country. The dreamer is how we have most of the things we love and utilize today. Without that dream of a life better or different than the one we currently live I don’t believe we would try so hard. He spoke of 2 types of madness and that was really interesting to me. The 1st madness: wishing to abolish men’s dreams
The 2nd madness of becoming unable to disentangle from ones dreams from reality. I don’t entirely believe that this way of thinking is realistic nowadays because we are creating a utopia! Its about time we take these dreams as plans in our political society and not just in our personal lives! Let’s stop elect a president that actually cares and is still human enough to see what the people need and not just what we need to hear. No more sugar coating and lets take care of everyone in the US!

# data[].attributes.headline
The Purpose and Limits of Government by Roger Pilon

# data[].attributes.subject
The Purpose and Limits of Government by Roger Pilon

# data[].attributes.body
This article is written very well for the purpose of explaining the reason why the Declaration of Independence was written. I really liked that they the authors of this important document and phenomenal piece of history, were thinking ahead to make sure the individuals that were placed in a political position had set limitations, and had a clear purpose of what was expected of them. The part that really set in my mind that they had a vision of what the country should run like and were able to draft a "recipe" that would take it to that as long as the rules and limitations were taken in consideration.
In a way they succeeded but there is always going to be loopholes found in the writing set in the Declaration of Independence, because thing and situations always are changing.
In my opinion, the reason why this country has not suffered so many hardships as the rest of the world,  thanks to the well written and followed document that has shaped the future of this amazing and inclusive country, The Declaration of Idependence.
.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.subject
A Moral Case Against Big Government by Ryan Messmore

# data[].attributes.body
This article by Messmore discusses about how government shapes the character, vision, and virtue of citizens. Messmore studies and writes about how religious commitment improves public discourse. To advocate good government is to recognize the indispensable role that political authority plays in a healthy community. I really enjoyed the way how Messmore describes his point of views and how he puts into words that everyone can most reply on. It's pretty easy to understand. One thing I agree with him was a good but limited government is one that serves its citizens by exercising well its particular task and refraining from other tasks. Essential to government's particular task is ensuring that other social institutions are free to exercise their own particular tasks. He also argues that  Governing is a moral task, and the size and scope of government have moral implications for society, including its members' ability to fulfill their ethical obligations to one another. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article.

# data[].attributes.body
The article “Utopianism, Ancient and Modern” is very informative and talks about some interesting ideas of utopianism. One thing I agree with is that parts of our society has Utopian ideas. He talks about one Utopian idea is in city planning. Cities want these perfect setups with all the buildings that look alike and are in perfect condition, but they fail to recognize the fact that these old buildings provide cheap rent, a place for entrepreneurs, and bring these cities there character. Also, many cities never leave space for a cemetery, not wanting to face the fact that we will die. The ideas of utopia are in all of us, but we need reason to control these ideas and see reality. Not that Utopian thinking is bad because it has led to many modern-day ideas that we live in, but has to be controlled by reason and reality.

This relates to American politics because with the upcoming election we need to elect a president that understands what our country needs and that they are not just using a Utopian idea that is not possible, but that it is controlled also by reason and reality. We want a president that can help the people and not just overlook the reality of life and our country. We need to look at the ideas of the presidential candidates and access the possibility and reality of there proposals. This essay, has a lot of information and is a little harder to understand, but has some really cool ideas.

This kind of explains some background to Utopian thinking and  some influence it has had on us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History of Utopian Thinking | Danilo Palazzo | TEDxUCincinnati

# data[].attributes.body
I read the article "A Moral Case Against Big Government" by Ryan Messmore. The article was about what the primary tasks the government will acknowledge that other social institutions are better at cultivating certain citizens and take care of those in need. The government has to excerise its own responsibility to protect its citizens. One thing I agree with while reading is that the government really does shape public imagination. The U.S government has responsibility to provide a vast number of goods which changes attitudes of citizens. The government makes people do certain things like going to public school, and paying taxes. In a different way the government expects citizens to say the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem, but does not force that out of citizens. This all relates to current government because a lot of times the government is automatically blamed if something goes wrong. People don't think about who should really take responsibility. The government is always trying to do the best for the vast majority of citizens, but no matter what there are going to be people who are unhappy.

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked how the author of this article explained things and how he put his opinions in different perspectives. My favorite quote from the article was when he wrote ‘The primary task of government is administering judgment according to standards of justice“ (Messmore). I remember being asked the question “Why do we have a government?” in high school and in my head, I understood to some degree why we have it, but I couldn’t put it into words. When I read that quote, it’s like I had an epiphany. Of course, it is talking about the primary task but that is the main task that my head goes too. The government imposes laws and policies as guidelines to keep Americans moral. Limitations on government are the same. By restraining the government from having absolute power, it gives them guidelines to also maintain moral perspectives and allows them to administer judgment according to current standards of justice without going overboard. By coinciding with the laws and policies set in place by government officials, we are rewarded with varying degrees of freedom. Again, this article was enjoyable to read and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his points.

Messmore, Ryan. “A Moral Case Against Big Government: How Government Shapes the Character, Vision, and Virtue of Citizens.” The Heritage Foundation, 27 Feb. 2007, www.heritage.org/political-process/report/moral-case-against-big-government-how-government-shapes-the-character.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this article and how detailed the author was. I also loved that he put his own opinions into it. My favorite part of the article was when he started to talk about Virtue and freedom. He said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," declared Benjamin Franklin, who echoed James Madison when he wrote, "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." Moreover, in his Farewell Address, George Washington asserted that "virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government." understood to some degree why we have it, but I couldn’t put it into words.” When I read this paragraph it brought so much into perspective.

This relates to the current government because the future president of the United States needs to have Virtue. They need to be honorable and know what we the people need. The future president needs to motivate citizens and soldiers. In addition to this faith his a good virtue. In certain lines of work, you need to be able to believe someone has a say in things other than you. A president also needs leadership, responsibility, discipline, and authority are good virtues in a president.

# data[].attributes.body
In Robert Rector’s article, he goes into depth about the America’s poor. How our version of poor doesn’t compare to other countries. We still have our luxuries.
I choose to focus on the child poverty and how to possibly end it or reduce the rate of child poverty. By increasing marriages in families, working patterns, and decreasing immigration. I believe all that is stated in the article has an effect to poverty in America.
I agree that welfare discourages marriages these days. All of the benefits that are given to simmer the finances/ medical issues in families get taken away after getting married or getting a  better paying job. It’s truly confusing how it works.
Rector, R. (2007). How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America. [online] The Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-poverty-america [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].