What consequences result if one accepts the author’s position?

The Annotated Bibliography

This Assignment may be included with your Semester Project, but will not count towards the minimum page length. It consists of
critical annotated bibliography to be attached to your semester project. These are the standards for this assignment:

You must have at least five academic, scholarly sources for your project. You must annotate your end-of-text citations by answering each of the following questions about each source:

Purpose: What is the central aim of the source you are reading? What is the author trying to accomplish?
Questions: What question is the author raising? What question does the author address?
Information: What information or evidence is the author of the source using to support his/her claim?
Inferences/Conclusions: What conclusions does the author make? How did the author reach the conclusion he/she/makes? Is there another way to interpret the information or evidence?
Concepts: What is the main idea of the source? Please explain this idea.
Assumptions: What is the author taking for granted? What assumptions led the author to reach his/her conclusion?
Implications: What consequences result if one accepts the author’s position? What consequences result if one fails to accept the author’s position? What is the author implying?
Points of View: From what point of view is the author looking at the issue? What are the author’s biases? Is there another valid point of view one should consider?

Each annotation entry must be in paragraph form, not a bullet list. Your annotations must be clear, accurate, precise, and logical. You must include your annotations with your essay or presentation. Please see the example annotation below for reference. Do not merely substitute text from the example below. The form of your answers to the above questions will likely differ from those in the example.

Machan, Tibor R. The Passion for Liberty. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 2003.

Tibor Machan aims to defend the basic tenets of ideological libertarianism through the lens of axiological critique, and to answer criticism from conservative and liberal detractors.  Drawing from sources in political thought such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Robert Nozick, he concludes that libertarianism itself is most consistent with the principles of the American founding, and connects the concepts of individualism and personal liberty with the natural rights argument from the Declaration of Independence.  Machan assumes that readers are generally familiar both with the natural rights argument and the competing theories of justice proffered by John Rawls and Robert Nozick.  Accepting Machan’s position carries significant ethical consequences for citizens and government.  A citizen who aligns himself with Machan would argue for a highly limited government, one which generally stays out of the affairs of individual citizens, except when a manifest injury is claimed by one citizen against another.  Machan further implies that the Rawlsian doctrine of “Justice as Fairness”  not only fails to take into account the need for individual autonomy within a political community, but that Rawls’ theory of justice is, at its core, unjust from a natural rights point of view.  Machan likely draws his hard-line libertarianism from a reaction to his personal experience as a subject of the repressive communist regime of late 20th Century Hungary, where individual liberty was forcibly diminished for the sake of state-sponsored social and economic equality of condition.