Camden
Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Mrs. Wanda Allen
The Role
Of Personal Responsibility
In Balancing Individual Liberty And The Common Good
By
Brianne Beasley
12th Grade
To each generation it seems to become more and more impossible to balance individual liberty and the common welfare. All of us expect more from the government that ever before. We expect to be protected from foreign enemies as well as crime in our own communities. We expect to be safe when we board a plane, drive a car, or take medication prescribed by our family physician. We depend on the government for public education, public libraries, parks, and recreation. For many Americans this dependence is much greater. Far too many Americans depend totally on the government for all of their food, housing, and healthcare. All of this dependence places an ever-increasing burden on American tax-payers.
As we become more and more dependent on our government to provide our wants and needs, our government becomes more dependent on working Americans to provide funding for these programs. In an article written in 2001 by Lawrence W. Reed entitles “Are We Going the Way of Rome?” the parallels between the fall of the Roman empire and the path of economic policies of the United States are both unmistakable and frightening. In this article Reed quotes Kershner’s First Law: “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last tax-payer is picked bare.” Even the most optimistic American will have to admit that without sweeping changes, Kershner’s Law may well define the fate of our children or grandchildren.
Just as Rome’s decline can be traced to the point when its citizens began to rely on income from the state instead of their own work and resourcefulness, many feel that a rapid decline in individual liberty in the United States began with the good intentions of President Lyndon Johnson and many other politicians. A program that was intended to help impoverished citizens through a rough time became instead a destructive force to the American way of life. According to Reed’s “Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy” the implementation and expansion of “welfare encouraged idleness, broke up families, produced intergenerational dependency and hopelessness, cost taxpayers a fortune, and yielded harmful cultural pathologies that may take generations to undue.”
In early America, families took great pride in providing for themselves and helping others who were in need. Today this pride is compromised by the expectation that your neighbor or even your family will be taken care of by the government or by the fact that the tax burden is now so great that people no longer have the means to share with others as they would like to. At what point do we say enough is enough? At what point do those who can not or will not work to provide for their families interfere with the way that I can take care of my family?
In this great country we enjoy many freedoms which are denied to citizens in socialist countries. Among these freedoms is the right to own property. Private property is crucial to individual freedom because with ownership comes a sense of responsibility and accountability. For example, people who own their own home are more likely to keep it in good condition and take more safety precautions than renters. This is reflected in insurance rates for homeowners being less than rates for renters. The lack of interference and regulations on private property is in direct contrast to an example given by Dwight R. Lee in his article, “Liberty and Individual Responsibility,” of federal and state restrictions for non-owned resources such as the atmosphere.
We tend to take care of what is our own. When entrusted with responsibilities, we rise toward our potential. If nothing is expected of us, or we don’t know what those expectations are, we tend to do nothing. Millions of Americans have been robbed of believing in themselves and of rising to their potential because it seems that nothing is expected of them.
In the article “Welfare State on the Street Where You Live,” Tibor R. Machan points out that “everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill.” I am a member of a small church where everyone has to pitch in to keep things running. If a light bulb goes out in a Sunday School classroom, the Sunday School teacher will soon see that it is replaced. When a light bulb goes out in the sanctuary, where everyone meets, everyone assumes that someone else will replace it. To ensure our individual freedom, we must not only take the responsibility to “replace our own light bulbs,” but enable and expect others to do the same.
Questions
Welfare State on the Street Where You Life (Tibor
Machan)
Q1-Why does Machan use “steal” in his statement:
“Private property solves this problem, but was abandoned a long time ago when
taxes reached the point where we can steal our way to being provided with all
sorts of things we desire, never mind thinking about paying for them or
long-range budgeting.”?
We are stealing because we are making taxpayers fund government projects that benefit us, instead of paying for it ourselves.
Q2-Machan said: “For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.” Give two examples of this from your personal experience.
I am a member of a small church where everyone has to pitch in to keep things running. If a light bulb goes out in a Sunday School classroom, the Sunday School teacher will soon see that it is replaced. When a light goes out in the sanctuary, where everyone meets, everyone assumes that someone else will replace it. In my own family, for many years my dad was the first to leave for work and always set the alarm clock for himself and then reset it for the rest of us. His schedule changed, and now at night we are all asking each other, “Did you set the alarm?”
Q3-Do you agree with Machan that “…everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful that a few.”? Give an objective example of this.
I agree with Machan. An example I have observed is the weeding of the flowerbeds at my church. Everyone knows who is supposed to drive the van or give the children’s sermon. For years we have all walked past the flowerbeds and wondered whose job it was to pull the weeds instead of taking it upon ourselves to do the job.
Are We Going the Way of Rome? (Lawrence Reed)
Q4-State Kershner’s First Law. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Kershner’s First Law states “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” I agree, because in our own society people are demanding more and more from the government at the expense of taxpayers, and the number of people receiving government aid is increasing.
Q5-What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?
The first industry to be taken over by the government both in ancient Rome and the USA was the transportation industry.
Q6-Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation? Explain.
Cheapening money caused inflation because the value of the money was actually less.
Q7-How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome’s economy?
Many people were killed for disobeying the law. People stopped marketing their goods because they could not get decent prices for them. The already poor economy declined.
Liberty and Individual Responsibility (Dwight R. Lee)
Q8-Lee claims that individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for what? Explain.
Lee claims individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for scarcity. If we had everything we needed, we would not have to depend on other people for anything. Because we live in a world of scarcity, we must depend on others for goods or services to help us survive.
Q9-Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.
If there were no rules, people who had more strength could force their way on weaker people. In this situation, people would have to compete to be the strongest or they would have nothing at all. Life in such a place would be very poor, because people would have no motivation to become wealthy knowing that it could be taken away by someone stronger.
Q10-Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?
Private property is crucial to freedom because with ownership comes a sense of responsibility and accountability. For example, people who own their own home are more likely to keep it in good condition and take more safety precautions than renters. This is reflected in insurance rates for homeowners being less than rates for renters. The lack of interference and regulations on private property is in direct contrast to the example Lee gives of federal and state restrictions for non-owned resources such as the atmosphere.
Lawrence Reed’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee
Q11-Argue both pro and con that in his testimony Lawrence Reed was advocating compassion and aid for the poor.
My first impression is that Lawrence Reed is against compassion and aid to the poor. He points out that in our society we are free to work as much or as little as we choose. Those who cannot or will not work require more and more taxpayer dollars from those who do. When it was created, welfare was intended to help people through a rough time. Instead, people have become dependent on it and their dependence has cost the recipients self-esteem, stable families, and motivation to provide for themselves. In this respect I believe Reed has compassion for the poor who have received a message from their government that they are not capable or at least not expected to amount to anything. Other than this, I do not see any evidence that Reed supports aid for the poor.
Q12-“If people are free, they will not earn equal incomes; conversely, show me a people who have equal incomes and I will show you a people who are not free.” Explain in your own words Mr. Reed’s meaning.
Free people will never be economic equals because they have the freedom to choose their career as well as how much time and energy they devote to it. They also have the choice to save what they earn to share it generously, to spend it wisely, or foolishly. The only way we could become economic equals would be to have absolutely no choice in any of these matters.