Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices. What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

I like both ideas that Mill and Marx have, but I do not agree fully on everything. I agree with Mill’s on the harm principle. I think we should be allowed to do as we please as long as it’s not causing harm to anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction though because I feel like everything is connected in the universe. Someone using drugs is only harming themselves at the time, but what about the effects of the drug on the brain. What if that person goes off and kills someone? For example, let’s say we have two people named Billy and Bobby. Billy and Bobby uses the narcotic crack. Billy uses crack and it doesn't interfere with anyone’s life but his own. On the other hand Bobby uses crack and ends up stealing to support his habit. Because of people like Bobby, laws are in place by our government. Although I do not condone drug use, isn’t it a violation of Billy’s rights to infringe a law that’s in place because of Bobby’s actions. So Although I like the idea of the harm principle I just don’t see how it can work in the world we live in today. Rules need to be set for the crazy people out there. The thing I like about Marx is how he acknowledges the struggle between classes and how it effects choices people make. If you do not have enough money for college this effects how and what you will become. Although I do not agree with communism, I’m not sure if it’s because this is what I was taught or because I genuinely do not agree, I am still questioning this myself.