Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Mrs. Wanda Allen
Striking a Balance
By Michael Kee
12th Grade
Since the beginning of our country, the founders realized that the balance between individual liberty and community welfare would be crucial to our survival. The wide range of individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution was an essential cornerstone for democracy. The United States is admired by many countries across the globe for the freedoms each one of our citizens is given. The basic rights Americans have are valuable to every citizen. Another important aspect of American society is community welfare. Community welfare is promoted by several groups ranging from churches to the government. The important relationship between individual liberty and community welfare cannot be ignored.
The laws of our nation make it clear that at times individual liberties must be limited to promote community welfare. Freedom of speech, which is thought by many to be the most beloved freedom in the Bill of Rights, is limited by state and federal laws to protect community welfare. Shouting “fire” in a crowded public place without good reason is a prime example. This limit on freedom of speech is definitely not a breech of our Constitutional rights because it would incite a panic that is damaging to the welfare of the community. Laws against disturbing the peace are another example of a limit on individual freedoms. The peace of the community far outweighs one individual’s right to blast music loud enough for the entire neighborhood to hear. These are just two examples of common laws that justly value community welfare over individual rights.
In other cases, individual liberty is more highly valued than what is considered by some to be the community welfare. For example, when a group wants to peaceably assemble it is illegal to prohibit the assembly based on what the group advocates. Specifically, some believe groups such as the Ku Klux Klan should not be allowed to assemble because their message of hate have a negative impact on the community. However, all groups’ right to assemble is protected under the First Amendment, and as long as they go through the proper process any group should be allowed to publicly assemble. In a case such as this, not allowing the group to assemble would be a larger violation of the individual rights of group members than a threat to community welfare.
Now, let us look at an example of when community welfare’s seniority over individual liberty is viewed differently by various areas of the country. Some view school uniforms as a way to focus students on learning rather than clothing trends, but others see requiring each student to wear the same outfit as a violation of the students’ right to express themselves. In this case, the community whose welfare is at stake is the student body. Although many schools across the country have uniforms, it is still the local school district’s decision. My school currently has no uniform requirements, and personally I am thankful for it. I disagree with school uniforms not because it is a violation of my individual liberty, but because it sends the wrong message to students. We should embrace the differences between each other, not smother individuality with uniformity.
Throughout the years, Americans have proven how important individual liberties are, yet we must consider the rights of others as well. As the saying goes, “your rights end where another person’s begin.” This means that one can exercise his or her rights freely as long as they do not violate the rights of someone else. That is where striking a balance between individual liberty and community welfare truly lies. We must find a way to give each person his or her Constitutional rights, while still respecting the rights of the community as a whole.
So just where do the rights of an individual conflict with the welfare of the community? This question is one that lawmakers have been trying to answer since the founding of our nation. Although it may be easy to disagree on where to draw the line between individual liberty and community welfare, it is clear that the balance between these two values must be maintained. Just how can you voice your opinion on this balance? Arguably the most important is by voting for those that hold your beliefs to represent you in office. Another way is stay involved in your local government when dealing with community issues such as a school uniform. So which should be valued more, community welfare or individual liberties? The answer to this question will differ depending on whom you ask. This proves that the debate between the two closely related topics will continue for years to come. Striking a balance may prove difficult, but we should never stop trying.
Questions
Welfare State on the Street Where You Live (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."?
When Machan uses the word steal he is referring to taxes. Everything the government provides for us is paid for by taxes. Machan believes the government doesn’t manage money well because they can always tax more to steal money from us.
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.
One example from my personal experience is my junior high school. It has come into a state of disrepair because most students simply don’t care about it. If they stick gum under a seat or write on a desk, then who would take notice? Another example I have seen is at our city park. Many of the wooden bleachers are barely standing and the bathrooms are filthy. Once again, the park is common to the whole city, so little care is bestowed upon it.
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 than a few."? Give an objective example of this.
An example of this can be seen at my local church dinners. When many people are there to help prepare the meal, they are less inclined to be productive because they believe someone else can do what they don’t. However, if only a few are preparing the meal, they take it upon themselves to do much more work, so everything is done much faster.
Are
We Going the Way of Rome?
(Lawrence Reed)
Q4- State Kershner's First Law. Do you agree or disagree and why?
“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 with Kershner’s First Law because taking from the rich to give to the poor creates a snowball effect. More and more people would choose to live in poverty since the government would take care of them. This would continue until the last hard-working taxpayer is broke.
Q5- What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?
Transportation was the first industry to be taken over by the government in both ancient Rome and the USA.
Q6- Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation? Explain.
Cheapened money is both a cause and an outcome of inflation. When money is cheapened, prices will naturally rise to compensate, therefore it is a cause of inflation. The rise in prices will cause the already cheapened money to become even less valuable, therefore it is also an outcome of inflation.
Q7- How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome's economy?
The Edict of 301 was a system of comprehensive wage and price controls enforced under a penalty of death. The edict caused Romans to stop bringing goods to market because they could not get reasonable prices for them. There was also much bloodshed because of citizens violating the provisions of the edict.
Liberty and Individual Responsibility
(Dwight R. Lee)
Q8- Lee claims that individuals could be "entirely independent of others"
except for what? Explain.
Scarcity is what keeps individuals from being entirely independent of others. Without scarcity, everyone would have everything they needed, so individuals would not rely on others to provide things for them. However, since scarcity does exist, people provide things for others that they cannot provide for themselves.
Q9- Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.
In a world without rules, anyone could do whatever he or she wanted as long as they had the power to do it. The problem that arises in such a situation is the absence of security. Anything you earn could easily be taken away by others with no consequence to the thief. Therefore, the majority of resources would be spent trying to protect what little property individuals have from the plundering of others. In this world, poverty would be common and no freedoms would be guaranteed.
Q10- Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?
Without private property, individuals have no motive to be productive other than possible punishment from hierarchs. Individuals will strive to better themselves under the rule of private property. Private property also allows people to make trades, which is crucial to the development of cooperation and competition. All of these results of private property expand the individual liberties exercised by all.
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.
In his statements, Reed was both advocating and discouraging aid for the poor. He argues against aid when discussing the welfare state under principle six. He states that the welfare state is like everyone standing in a circle, with each of us having one hand in the next guy’s pocket. He argues in favor of aid for the poor under principle one. He stresses that in a free society incomes will never be equal. However, if incomes are unequal due to artificial political barriers, then we should remove the barriers.
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.
Mr. Reed means that if a people are truly free to act as they see fit, within a set of rules of course, they will inevitably earn unequal incomes. This is caused by the different spending and saving habits of the individuals. Conversely, if people are forced to have equal incomes, then their freedoms are severely limited because they are restricted by what they can spend and save. A great example of this is the former Soviet Union. The soviet citizens had equal incomes and living conditions, and if anyone tried to acquire more than anyone else the government stepped in to put a stop to it.