Kinsley High School
Kinsley, Kansas
Teacher: Dr. Galen Boehme
Understanding Our Social Responsibilities within the Community
By Clayton J. Riisoe
12th Grade
To gain a better knowledge of balancing individual liberties and the common good, we must understand that with our freedom, respect for others, and authority, we have social responsibilities in the community.
Key terms will help us gain a better understanding of the problem at hand. “Liberty” is the quality or state of being free. “Freedom” means independent or having liberties. The state of being equal as someone else is “equality.” A “moral value” is what each person considers to be right and wrong. Key terms all have broader meanings than their individual definitions and are not limited by these definitions.
Freedom is given to us by our authority. The only way to maintain any freedom is by controlling the authority. In the U.S.A. the people make up this authority. For this reason, maintaining an uncorrupted government is imperative. Our leaders must have respect for freedom but also know the limits. Freedom is the right to have choices, but not too many choices. Where the government draws the line on our liberties is entirely up to the people which compose the authority. Finding the balance of our individual liberties and the common good is up to each citizen to be involved to carry out our duties. We must use our freedom to serve the best interests of not just ourselves. We will not be selfish if we can respect the liberties of others. When one respects others, then others will respect that individual. Respecting the freedom of each individual will cause each of us to live truly free lives. Individual liberties will not be infringed upon by others and we will not infringe upon the liberties of others.
Respect is important for many reasons. It boosts self-esteem and decreases friction between people. Respect shows us that we are different in many ways. For example, some of us are short as some of us are tall. Also, some of us are intelligent as some of us are incompetent. Both physically and mentally, everyone will differ from each other person. It is naïve to think of equality as a means for us to have the job we think suits us even if the skills may not exist. However, one way in which we can encourage respect is through equality.
An equal opportunity employer is an example of equality. Employers who choose employees by their skills and not by how these people look, by the color of skin, and by the gender are equal opportunity employers. We strive for equality but know that these ideas often fail. Some colleges have a quota on how many black students must attend and must fill this quota for different funds. In this situation, what we are told is that we must take away from a white person who might have been a more qualified student than a few of the black students who were accepted. This does not seem equal for the students who will not be accepted. On the flip-side, discrimination and bias may cause many black students not to be accepted once the quota is full. The admissions may just close the doors for the black students and accept more of the lower class college applicants of different ethnicities. If equality truly existed, no quota would need to exist. The students who earn the right will be the students admitted.
A similar problem is happening for women sports in college. Many colleges have to reserve a portion of certain funds to the female teams regardless of who made the money. This could take away from the men’s sport program. In basketball for example, even though the talent may be greater for men’s basketball, the women will receive a portion of the money earned. Men’s sports gather the crowd. Is sharing the limelight really fair if these men have earned it? Is playing with faulty equipment and on petty scholarships fair for the hard working female athletes? Perhaps if respect and equality existed, the female basketball team would find ways to fund the program, and more people would be willing to help for the sake of these individuals’ education. Everything ties back to how we must be responsible when balancing our individual liberties and the common good. Respecting each others’ differences will ultimately help to create a more positive society and lead to a more law-abiding citizenship for each of us.
Authority in the United States is made up of the people whom we Americans choose to represent us. In our government currently, some citizens have much more influence than others, and much more influence than they should have. Money, greed, and personal welfare are often what these people push for and also push with. Simply standing up for our own beliefs and not standing aside would increase the likeliness that the wrongfully powerful will not have so much power. For example, millions of individuals fail to vote because these individuals cease to believe that their opinions will help anything. What many Americans fail to realize is that the millions of people with similar ideas, but without the initiative can make a large difference. Pushing for an untainted government based on the liberties of the people and common welfare means voicing the beliefs of the people. This will place the wrongfully powerful into the crowd. In the crowd, their negative control is limited as is the power of any one individual. This will probably lead to a government with moral values and ideas from the people. If we trust our moral values and speak as a whole, these people may be forced to take a step back and let those whom we elected run our government. If the plan succeeds, a government with honest leaders will do the job we ask them to do without many of the problems that are evident today.
In understanding that we must balance individual liberties and the common good, we must carry our social duties with respect for freedom, for equality, and for authority.
Answers To Questions Triggered by the Required Reading
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.”?
I believe Machan is trying to emphasize the point that we are stealing and not taking. We are ‘stealing’ our way to everything we can get our hands on. This part of the article deals with personal ethics and brings up this question, “Is it right to use government funds to fund our projects?” He is also saying in this paragraph that we will never stop ‘stealing,’ because no one has any idea where the limit is. This is one of the main reasons the governments all over the world are going broke. It is much easier to take from the government than put forth our own effort in order to get what we want. A lot of the time we are ‘stealing’ things we do not truly need such as more parks when another is only a short drive away. Machan is saying that we will continue taking more than our share in taxes for our favorite projects and ideas. The fact is that we have been stealing for so long that it is mainstream and no one really believes it is wrong.
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 believe Machan’s thought has merit. Machan is saying that the higher the numbers are, the more each person expects someone else to do a job. This thought has merit because in my personal experience, I have seen his thinking in action at the grocery store. Often I have worked on days with only a few people and other days I have worked with several people. On each of these days, a very similar amount of work is done. One would guess that on days with more people, more work would be done. This is not how it works. Workers realizing that more co-workers are around, work at a slower pace, knowing that they will get out on time since so many people are working. Another example is when many workers are near the register and only one checker needs help sacking and carrying-out. Each worker will be reluctant until finally someone decides to take a stand.
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 that everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill. My family is a prime example this theory. In my family, when the kitchen is a mess, we all know that we have contributed to that mess. Each member in my family, however, is reluctant to do any cleaning because each of us only had a “small portion” of the mess. Really, it is everyone’s small portions of messes that make that of the large mess that exists. Finally, someone will step in and put the dishes in the dishwasher, wipe the counter tops, and sweep the floor. The cleaning is a short and simple process, but we all want someone else to do it. This is exactly the way everyone inclines to neglect his or her duties so someone else may fulfill them. In summary, as we become more dependent upon others, we lose more and more responsibility both personally and in the community.
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 has been picked.” Concerning this quote, I agree with Kershner. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. Even when everyone knows the government is on the verge of collapsing, we continue to take in order to retrieve as much as we can until nothing is left. This is when government takes control, taking from the poor and giving to the already wealthy with no middle class at this point. Then, when no money can be taxed from those in poverty, a negative result occurs both for the government and the people. Where can the government go after their primary sources of funds are gone? It can no longer survive and “the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” At this point the people will stop idolizing and choose a leader who will help them. In Rome’s case it was a politician named Clodius and he had the “Free wheat for masses plan.” This of course received everyone’s vote and they lived much like the hogs in the article.
Q5- What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and USA?
Transportation has been taken over by the government. Government in the U.S.A says that it has power in commerce. This is interpreted by the Supreme Court as anything that moves. So obviously, this includes transportation. Just like in ancient Rome, the U.S. has seized controls of shipping, and personal transportation. The government controls taxes as well as what is being imported and exported. So both Rome and the U.S.A. share this trait. This is an interesting indicator that may show that we could be “Going the way of Rome.”
Q6- Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation?
Reed seems to believe that cheapened money is the cause for inflation. Increasing production and using alternative metals make money cheaper. By
making cheapened money, prices start to skyrocket and savings erode. People blame businessmen for rising prices as the government continues to spend more. I believe that cheapened money is also an outcome of inflation. When the U.S. went into the Great Depression, money decreased rapidly in price; money did not go as far. However, the U.S. came out of the Depression so it was not a permanent inflation. As long as the cost of a dollar decreases slowly enough, then no problem will exist. The problem arises when a quick change occurs and people’s life savings turn into petty cash in days, weeks, or even months. This is what should be avoided.
Q7- How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome’s economy?
It hurt the economy by making all those people in the market place afraid. Simple costs, if too high could be punishable by death. Very unnecessary death was not the smartest move for the economical status of Rome. Death was evident over slight differences in trifling accounts and everyone steered away from striving to get ahead in fear for their lives. Fear is no way to run any government, and an early death for the bravest is a scary thought. How can an economy improve when all the citizens of the economy steer away from it to spare themselves? If I were in their positions, I too would stray from the deadly economy no matter how poor I am.
Q8- Lee claims that individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for what? Explain.
Lee says that we could be entirely independent of others, if scarcity failed to exist. Lee and everyone else are held back by scarcity, or many would be independent. Lack of resources, motivation, and time are all holding the individual back from becoming independent. Scarcity of resources, though it is the main reason, is not the sole reason behind the dependency of our society. Scarcity will always remain, as population is high and land area is too small. We will always be dependent upon others as long as scarcity, lack of motivation, and lack of time exist.
Q9- Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.
Too many rules and no rules is the dilemma discussed by Lee. He says that without rules freedoms are infringed upon by the bullies. Then, if too many rules exist, our rights are infringed upon by the political leaders. Either way, problems are evident. This is the dilemma Lee speaks about through the article. The only way to fix this problem is to find the balance. The balance between rules and no rules is necessary to give everybody the freedom we need. It is hard to say what this balance is and no government will truly reach it. Like Lee states in the article, an angel would make a perfect government but would not need any such authority.
Q10- Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?
Private property gives us responsibility. Carrying out these responsibilities with our own will is what makes us free. Without the right of private property, like in the 1700’s and earlier, forces everybody to be completely dependent upon the government who owns the land. One does not feel the need to be responsible for something he does not own. At the same time, too many rules make owning private property harder and more of an unwanted idea. If rules say one has to share this property, the property is not truly the person’s. If rules say that one has to do something particular with this land, then this land is not truly owned by this person. A lot of problems exist with owning property even today as owning it costs tax money, as well as maintaining the property, and keeping up with regulations. Private property is still crucial to freedom, as one must live on his own land if he is to truly be at home and to be free in any way. Having private property causes us to be more independent and to be more responsible giving us our freedom.
Q11- Argue both pro and con that in his testimony Lawrence Reed was advocating compassion and aid for the poor.
Reed argues both pro and con, advocating compassion and aid for the poor. On the pro side, Reed understands that some people just do not have the physical or mental capabilities that may be required to be equal to another person. Each person’s talents are different and make us who we are. Reed talks about a basketball player and his pay being much higher than his own, and understands that it should be this way based on his talent. On the con side, Reed argues that people are in a state they are in because we have chosen to be in some ways. For example, two great basketball players with the same abilities may separate down the road. One could become homeless, and the other may become a professional athlete. So why does such a large difference exist? The answer is because one was not as lazy or worked harder than the other. Most people have potential, but the matter of using it is entirely up to us.
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.
Many reasons exist why I believe this thought has merit. One reason is each person spends a different amount and saves a different amount of his own money. Two people with the exact same job and pay can have completely different total values. One might spend wisely and save money, and the other might spend an extreme amount on himself or even give to charities. Groceries, taxes in the area, family members, clothing, and countless other factors all cause us each to be different in some ways. Reed states in the article, “I would argue that if the President could somehow snap his fingers and equalize us all in terms of income and wealth tonight, we would be unequal again by this time tomorrow because some of us would save it and some of us would spend it.” Another reason this thought shows merit is though our industriousness as Reed also states. Some of us work harder, longer, and smarter than others. This makes each individual waver in respect to what that individual is worth in that position. As for this statement: “Equal people are not free,” Reed is saying that if the President did snap his fingers and made us equal, and then proceeded to tell us to spend and save our money equally, we would not be free. No one would have a choice whether to spend or save money, or what to spend that money on.