Kinsley High School
Kinsley, Kansas
Teacher: Dr. Galen Boehme

By Kevin Proberts
12th Grade
 

When identifying common good we must determine the forms of freedom, must determine how equality is different among individuals, and must determine the checks and balances of freedom and equality.         

The common definition for the word “freedom: the right to unrestricted use or full access which allows the right to be a member or create citizenship.”  According to this definition individuals have the right to access and do anything desired as a citizen or a member.  Unfortunately this definition is not true in all cases. Freedom is different [for different people]. To achieve freedom in one aspect, one must give up some freedom in another. ... We the American people have given up some of our freedom to the government so we can be safe on the streets at night. Law enforcement patrols the streets at night to make sure that our freedom, to do what we want, is held to a limit. 
         

Equality is the quality or state of being equal in a quantity of power, status, or degree. “Free people are not equal and equal people are not free.” Though this country is based on freedom and equality, we as in all people, will never be equal. Some little difference among each individual will exit. Whether that difference be something personal such as personality, ethnicity, or even other features of the body it is still human. Particularly the equality is very diverse because some individuals in the government chain have more powers. Those individuals in a community who have higher incomes have more power than those with less income. When this comes about some individuals with more money become snotty. That is what money can do to a person. It can cause them to think [too highly of] themselves. ... Government creates welfare for those who need the money to live more comfortably. Money comes from those who have a higher income of course. The government [levies] taxes to obtain what is [a] common good. The government even helps by [providing] a park or some recreation in a community to give the people something to do. “What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.” Vandalism takes place here. It is interesting how those in a community with some money [and] power use their own...money to maintain...a park, while those individuals with no money tend to wreck it. Why? Somebody just became bored one day and decided “hey I’m going to go tear the heck out of the park today because I have nothing better to do.” The government usually...creates some other source of recreation such as a swimming pool or local festival.

Government...distinguishes...needs from...wants. They do this by determining what the common good should be for the people. The common good is taking what freedom is available to a community as a whole and then classifying it as what everybody in that community needs. These are also known as the checks and balances of the government. What do people need? What will the people get out of this? What are the pros and cons? These are the many factors that helps determine common good.

The overall government plan is to distinguish what the relationship shall be between freedom, equality, and welfare in the state that is good for all citizens. First, the government needs to determine what rights are good for everyone. This shows what everybody can or cannot do. The government will [derive] this authority by using the “checks and balances” of freedom and equality. Questions such as “If I allow one area to have this much freedom, will...another area have the same amount of freedom?” For example, during the years of segregation the government allowed facilities in areas to be segregated. This caused riots because the segregated facilities were not equal. Therefore the government stepped in and said that segregation is legal, but the facilities must be equal. Today that certainly is not an aspect but the principle still applies. The police, as another example, have the authority to punish individuals for breaking [laws], yet the police must follow those same laws or will be punished as well. [The] check and balance is that the police have the freedom and power to punish criminals, yet [they too may] be punished while off duty and in some cases while on duty.

Equality, which is most certainly the toughest area to master, is determined by the individuals in the hierarchy of government. Generally equality is similar to people by sub-classes rather than all the people in one general group. [Those in] the rich class [are] all equal [in] paying high taxes and living according to their assets. ...taxes...may [be lower for the lower classes but]...equality remains...because each [class] still contributes some sort of tax. Why doesn’t [the] government...limit incomes [for the rich]? The government cannot do this because of the right to work. Without... diverse  incomes, there would [be little] competition and jobs would [be available on a first-come-first-served basis].  It is difficult for jobs to be equal because a person may not be able to handle the job. If the government picks our jobs for us, chaos will develop causing an economic downturn. The government...also refrains from designating...jobs because it [would] give [it] too much power. If the government can give us jobs then obviously the government can take them away. Overall freedom and equality are different between individuals depending on who they are, what they do, and how each task benefits the government [and society].

The government [should] find a more specific common definition for freedom and equality by determining the common good among all people depending on what is needed and what is wanted. We need specific definitions to find out exactly what is considered freedom. What is the government basing our country on? [The U.S. Constitution.] It must be something that relates to each individual living in this country. Is this freedom allowing us to do what we want, how we want, and when we want? How do equality and freedom relate? Who deserves equality and who does not along with what is required to achieve this equality? Questions like these strike me because every place in the world is different. No matter what, the people of each country live how the local government wants them to. It just so happens that [the U.S. Constitution] has limited the freedom of both government and people. If freedom is to do what we want, how can we limit that? Perhaps freedom is a fundamental personal and social good rather then what is right and wrong between person and government. The object of the right to liberty is to allow people to live life as they choose, as long as they do not aggress against the freedom of others. This is the ability to think, act, and perform as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.  The government does however distinguish what the needs and wants of each individual should be [in relation to] the common good. Obviously we need food so the government provides this with welfare programs for those who need it. If government provided everything that the people wanted then nobody would need to work to get it therefore jobs would be a hectic mess as in that there would be a high demand for workers, but nobody willing to work.

The overall goal...is to [discover how to preserve] freedom and equality. [Our forefathers] created requirements for freedom, and equality [hoping] it [would prevent] those freedoms from] being taken for granted. Specific limitations [have been created] that will allow people to live life as they choose, as long as they do not [transgress] the freedom of others. [Citizens have obligations like] paying taxes and [community involvement]. If these [obligations] are exercised, it will...prevent [the] chaos [that might otherwise arise from] too much freedom. The possible drawback...will be no...clear definition of freedom.... Not everybody’s definition of freedom can be determined, but [the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution]...can explain to all people the right to be free, [and that] limited freedom is a must to keep the people safe [and]   for the common good [to flourish].

Answers To Questions Triggered by the Required Reading

“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.”?
Machan using the word steal in his statements of the paper brings up question. What is the definition of steal? My definition of steal is to take something from another without consent, or to take something that is rightfully not mine. Isn’t it hypocritical of the government to fine American individuals for stealing when the government obviously has stolen? Some individuals steal to survive. The people of communities now rely on luxuries that the government supposedly is required to provide. Yet the individuals with money feel they are being stolen from because those who live on welfare are being acquitted of receiving benefits from the government when that money is coming from taxpayers. The government is trying to play the role of “Robin Hood” by stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Obviously in today’s society this aspect of welfare is being taken advantage of.

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.
People take advantage of what they feel is common good. The local movie theater in my town for example, has been fighting for survival as long as I can remember. I’ve noticed that when it comes to volunteer work, it is always the same individuals volunteering. I recently went to a movie, and the individuals in front of me were complaining about the price of a movie. The movie costs $5 here. At any other theater in a big city, the cost would range from $8 - $10 for the same movie. Is it right to complain over something that has been worked on so hard to keep going? Unfortunately there are still individuals that feel they must complain about a dollar amount. Some individuals become upset about businesses that do not always “donate” for organizations that try to allow people in youth groups to take field trips. It is hard for a restaurant in a small town to “make it” let alone donate. It is always comforting for a business to donate and help the community, but it isn’t necessarily a requirement of that business. The individuals of a community need to become less reliable on others for luxuries, yet when a business makes one person upset in the community it creates a chain of others becoming upset. 

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.
I agree with Machan about his statement of one expecting another to fulfill their duties. People of the community can talk but eventually more is said than done. In my job where I work I have a higher responsibility to complete my work when the next employee can slack off. Yet I am paid the same as the next employee, which is less than minimum wage, and I am required to complete my job each night no matter how much help is offered. As a cook I am supposed to work with another to make the work easier and increase production by cutting the tasks in half. When a fellow employee is feeling lazy or thinks that he is not going to complete his work because of some personal problem, ever other employee faces the downfall. As a result those who refuse to work rely on others to complete their work for them. Without the completion of certain tasks the other employees are left with twice the cleanup of the job and twice the negative attitude, which eventually results in fighting and arguments. Imagine what could happen to a community or family when this same situation takes place. Can this same situation cause fighting and negative attitude in a community, ultimately to creating a downfall?

“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: “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 this statement. This statement comes to effect especially in the area of taxing. The government uses taxation from the citizens by using taxes such as the income tax. This tax is greatly used to take from some with a high income but with few children, and give to those who have a lower income and more children. The government also uses these taxes to create types of health insurances that are only income based. If an individual qualifies as “low-income,” then he qualifies for an insurance that greatly reduces the amount of medical bills. Those who have a higher income will not qualify for this type of insurance and must find an alternate source of paying for these bills. This is a small example of many taxes that the government uses to transfer the money from the rich to the poorer.

Q5 – What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?
The first industry that was taken over by government in ancient Rome and America was obviously transportation. Transportation is what the government needed to provide unity for the nation. Without transportation there would not be mixed cultures of products and people. The government in America started its first transportation by the railroads, which could transport goods and people from East Coast to the West Coast. This was good for the economy because rather than selling and trading goods to just an area of the country, the goods can be shipped to other areas. Transportation also allowed people of different cultures to spread throughout the country, which has provided the many blends of products to be sold and brought new ideas to others. Transportation is obviously the number one leader in jobs. The United States government has provided many jobs that range from drivers to operate the transportation, the mechanics that each form of transportation requires, and stewardesses that serve luxuries. The principle stands that without the transportation this country would still be very primitive, and lack unity. Thus transportation provides good methods of taxation.

Q6 – Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation? Explain.
Cheapened money is the cause and effect of inflation. When I sit outside and talk to senior citizens it seems as if they bring up the same topics: “Well, I remember when I could buy this and that for ten cents! Today it costs almost a whole dollar.” Or “They don’t make things like they use to”. This observation is very true. The prices of items have gone up and the quality has changed. Cars today really have changed the views of senior citizens. Sure, cars are not made of metal anymore but with a type of fiberglass that is somewhat more dangerous, and somewhat safer than older cars. The danger comes about because the older vehicles that strike newer ones in a crash can be very fatal for the individual in the fiberglass car. The safety comes in because the fiberglass acts as a sponge to absorb the crash. The newer cars are more technical these days but the quality of them seems cheap depending on the name brand. Though today’s gas prices are considered high the technology in today’s’ vehicle allows the average car to get almost 30 miles per gallon of gasoline. So are we really spending more? Sure! Those like me who drive vehicles with old technology will find that costs for gasoline will be increasingly emptying our pockets. Whether the world likes it or not the technology is changing. This is one of many examples, but the main focus is that the minimum wage in 2005 is different than what it was in early 1900’s. There is no explanation of why the value of a dollar is going down. It is just as hard to live comfortably on minimum wage today as it was 20 years ago, yet to those of us who are old fashioned think that quality is going down and prices are going up. The only government solution that is being applied is to use more welfare programs to help the individuals overcome poverty, or to start a war which has been done in previous history during inflation.

Q7 – How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome’s economy?
Edict of 301 affected Rome’s economy by establishing a system of comprehensive wage and price controls, to be enforced by a penalty of death. Individuals were sent out to regulate prices of all vendible things. There was such a shortage of items that consumers could not afford anything due to high demand and low supply. Thus many people consequently could not give a reasonable price to sell items and were punishment by death. Rome had no market at this point and times were becoming so difficult that the empire had a shortage of consumers and a shortage of supply. Consequently the empire’s market collapsed. The government trying to step in by imposing penalties for market caused the downfall of the economy.

 “Liberty and Individual Responsibility” (Dwight R. Lee)
Q8 – Lee claims that individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for what? Explain
Lee says that individuals could be “entirely independent of others in a world without scarcity.” In a world without scarcity people would not depend on others for survival. People would have everything they need to live and would not set rules or even a government to take care of problems such as poverty. Therefore, we could do whatever we want and it would have no impact on anybody else. However, when everybody has enough freedom they will have little motivation to devote efforts to the production of wealth. This causes the competition among individuals to decrease, and individual’s skills would be more devoted towards stealing for survival. If one were able to survive such an environment he would have low standards. Lee says the life in this environment would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Eventually people would become greedy and protect little possessions with their lives. Eventually these people would kill each other, protecting these possessions.

Q9 – Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.
The dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee illustrates what the world would be like if no rules existed. Everyone would be free to do whatever he pleases as long as he had the power to force his will upon others. The toughness for survival would increase because people would compete to be the tougher individual who could hold more power over another. If one had enough physical power he could force others to work for him without compensation, basically being a slave. This would result in a downfall because no motive would exist to produce more and become more intelligent. (The only motive that slaves would have is to not get their butts whipped.) Basically the increase of freedom to no rules causes freedom to dissolve to those who seek more power. This would cause the individuals to develop the skill to protect themselves from being robbed and increase the skill for survival.

Q10 – Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?
Private property is crucial to freedom because private property can be shared in many ways. Private property brings out the value in people because it expresses the honesty that one put into their property. Thus if one individual put a lot of time and effort into their property they want to share the costs of effort put into the property. It also allows a sense of pride to one because they made their property worth something. When people prize an object or task then the individual will not necessary lie about the value. The government allows our private property to be created however we wish to an extent, and allows us to do what we want to a certain extent. Private property can also be taken away through mutual agreements which also can be crucial to freedom because through marriage the assets are now divided. If a divorce should occur then a small amount of freedom is taken away, yet divided amongst the two individuals of marriage. Under the rule of private property the freedom of private property and ownership of the property expand depending on the status of the owner.

“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.
Reed does not advocate compassion and aid for the poor. Reed basically says how life is. He holds no arguments for the poor stating that they are being mistreated. Reed is saying that to achieve a goal one must give something for it such as a small part of freedom. This matches the quote “free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.” If we are free then some individuals must consider the different levels of poverty and have different interests in the world. If we were all equal then we would all do the same job, earn the same pay, and live the same lives. How boring is that? So is equality really a great thing? Reed does however advocate how the government takes from the rich to give to the poor through taxes. Reed seems to want welfare benefits for the poor, yet not to take from the rich. So in a way there is not much equality between the rich and the poor. Reed recognizes that we will always have the poor but the poor must be handled with compassion. Some individuals can be victims of their circumstances. (Principle 3) If these people became too dependent on outside help and show no steps in becoming independent, then our compassion becomes worthless, thus it becomes important for us to know what tough compassion is. Tough compassion involves mentoring until the person stops growing as an individual and forcing to face reality.

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.
Reed’s comments of “if people are free, they will not earn equal incomes. Show me a people who have equal incomes and I will show you a people who are not free.” This comment means that if people are free then they will have different jobs that pay different amounts of money based upon the skills of the worker. If people are equal then people would earn the same income, basically living a boring organized lifestyle. The jobs would be the same along with benefits, housing, and many more. This form of equality cannot support the country so therefore we must not be too equal to make our country work. So Reed is saying that in order for our country to work we need competition among one another so that individuals will work hard to be chosen for a specific job rather than picking somebody randomly from a group. Without competition employers would not need to be hiring better skilled people. Our technology era would be primitive due to no competition and no motivation for better education to create better products.

Back