Burlington High School

Burlington, Kansas

Teacher: Devra Parker

 

Reason & Logic Withhold Liberty & Security

Loren Halfmann

12^th Grade

 

What is more reasonable: a people with freedom [to pursue]…life, liberty, and happiness or a people with [an] equality that provides no room for progression?  I confess that equality is moralistically comfortable but takes away the chance to prove that we CAN be ethical.  When a government [is too] confining…it leaves no room for betterment. …

 

When [people are] given liberties, they are given the right to be themselves and to express fully.  With freedom of speech, one can say what one thinks.  Freedom of religion means a person [can]…follow philosophical way of life without fear of rejection.  [Freedom fosters] inventiveness and new ideas. …

 

It is important for everyone to feel safe and secure. It is vital to have laws that guide the citizens.  When the government has responsibilities and has a role in the daily life of its populace it is significant. For the people to have a place within the government in order to govern him or herself, but not exclusively, is crucial.  …

 

To dig deeper, as a human being, one has certain responsibilities. One must help preserve the sanctity of each and every one of our natural born rights.  Not only our own but other’s as well.  If this is not withheld on a personal level, as a whole, not a single one of them is worthy of the civil liberties entitled to those guilty.  

 

Freedom and the safety of the community will always be in contrast with one another. You can never have total independence and be in a state of security. The same goes in the other direction. Not everyone can handle complete freedom in a responsible manner. Herein lays the importance of laws.  Rules rarely will not interfere with personal liberties.  Is this truly a problem?  Some may not think so. These individuals say freedoms need to be limited in certain situations. For instance, the right to bear arms may impede on another person’s liberty to not be harmed by another person or to have their right to live be taken away. A law might disregard someone’s emancipation to bear arms in order to prevent contrast on another human being’s rights.  Although not fully fair to everyone, this law is for the common good.  In other words, either the minority or possibly the majority will be forced to sacrifice for the benefit of the whole.  

 

This is why it is necessary for there to be rules in place. For some they are merely guidelines while, for others, the regulating documents keep them in check. They protect and save others as well as those who would normally abuse freedom.  In a way, security can be a freedom. A grip on the people that is loose can only provoke the importance of following the law. A tight grip of protection may not allow those inhabitants to break the law, but it then takes away all freedoms. How will this permit the citizens to take personal responsibility in order to ensure the common good? It will not. In fact, it will have the opposite effect.

           

Given many freedoms, the people of America take pride in having to take part in guaranteeing the common good and people’s individual rights. I would have to say that if this group of citizens were forced to throw their freedoms away for a safer living, their pride would soon diminish.  However, if security was not an issue at all, the role of the government would sink. Would this mean that the government’s role, or one of their major roles, is to provide a sense of security? Other than to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, there is nothing else to try and provide a safer environment.  

 

Perhaps it is a question of whether or not the administrating muscle should be able to limit what freedoms we have in order to prevent incidents.  For example, should we have a law that tells us what time to wake up every morning?  If this was a law, we wouldn’t have to worry about traffic accidents until a certain time.  Businesses could open up at a definite time.  In result the government and the citizens in general would save time and money.  Although beneficial, and for the common good, it doesn’t make it right.  Waking up at a certain moment every morning is a personal choice based on preference or necessity not when it is safest or most legal.

 

Although this example is some what farfetched, some individuals wouldn’t mind putting in place such laws to protect themselves.  Those people hold no trust in their neighbors.  It is a personal responsibility to hold trust within others in the community.

 

To be picky, and unbiased, let us forget the 200 years that our great nation has enjoyed civil liberties.  A state based on nothing else but the common good of the people disregards any connection between entitled freedoms and complete inventiveness.  A country where the citizens within hold trust for one another, are the ultimate deciders, do not abuse their freedoms, and will carry out their personal responsibility of preserving liberties for all is a nation state that is balanced between freedom and the common good.

 

Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading

 

Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay?

 “…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.”  Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?

           

Because if a group of people are not used to having freedom of being a loser or a winner, they will not like the chance that they may lose.  Equality to the extent where everyone does not have a chance to excel is fair, but it does not give a chance to be individualistic.  If a group of people are not accustomed to being their own man and making their own path, they will be not satisfied with a chance at failure.

 

Q2- Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.”  To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?

 

Chris Carney attributed these feelings to James Madison.  He was the Founder of the Constitution and a Founding Father. 

 

Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.

 

When a government tries to make its people happy by creating unambiguous equality amongst all its peoples, it does not work in favor of the governing class. The problem is that instead of the people earning and working for its foods and goods the government takes care of it. In this process, the citizens must be taxed. In order to make up for all that the regime is providing, the populace must give everything they make to the government. Everything we as individuals become akin to is thrown out the window.  One person will have no more or no less than their neighbor. This leaves that person with nothing to be proud, and they are left without any motivation.

 

Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.” Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.

 

Kelly explained how by having the right to bear arms can lead to the event of one person shooting a nothing human being. The individual shot has a right to live and to be free from harm.  By abusing the right to bear arms, one can take away the freedoms of another.  This is true in an endless amount of cases. The only thing preventing from the system of people NOT abusing their rights is trust. I trust that when I am driving on the highway, a legal action, that another person won’t purposely run into my lane, an illegal action, and wreck into me. 

 

Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” How does he relate individual liberty to dictators?   Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.

 

A dictator instantaneously recognizes that if people have individual freedoms, they are independent upon their leader.  When this is so, the leader is rendered less powerful.  If a leader is the supreme giver and supplier of the people, the citizens rely on the dictator.  Even if this does not make the tyrant more powerful it makes him feel more authoritative.

 

Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?

 

Paranoia has taken control of the American society in the past. It has happened. Look at the time during WWII when Japanese-Americans in the US were put in internment camps because the majorities were willing to sacrifice the rights of the minority for safety. When you look at the Cold War, you may recall an event called the Red Scare.  This was when if you were accused of being a communist, your life and rights was literally thrown out the door. However, I believe it would be extremely difficult for people of today to compromise their freedoms for safety. In fact, you see much more often times people challenging the system to make sure it’s as constitutional as possible.

 

Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.”? She doesn’t agree.  Do You?

 

Patrick Karcher made this statement.  I do not agree.  I don’t think the framers would have ever compromised the idea of individual liberties over any sort of protection.  Armed with the knowledge and foreseeing that they had, the Founding Fathers creating an everlastingly successful document that has freedom in mind.

 

Q8- “Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution.” Do you agree or disagree?  Aaron Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act.  How do you personally feel about these two issues?

 

I agree with this statement.  Personally I think both are proper and decent.  Even though both mean that an individual losses some constitutional rights, it’s still more beneficial this way.  Some things must be for the better good.
 

Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where “the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.” What was the name of that book?  Have you read it?

 

The book is called The Giver.  I don’t recall reading this book.  I have read a book titled 1984.  It seems very similar to the book that Annie talks about though.

 

Q10- “As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups. Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty. Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved.” This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay. Which side of the issue do you support and why?

 

The government should never have unrestricted powers on any one issue or matter.  Although I cannot see a people being able to take care of complex problems beyond what individual liberties can provide.  In this, the government should not allow unrestricted freedoms.  The administration should have to depend upon the people more so than the citizens depending on the government.

 

Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.

 

An example would be when a person who drinks decides to not step into a car that night.  Making this decision could prevent a lot of grief and could eliminate a law through personal responsibility.  Wearing a seatbelt is something a lot of people do not want to do, but they are there to protect people’s lives.  If citizens took that into consideration, there wouldn’t be a need for a law in place.  Animal abuse laws are in place because people are irresponsible and can’t take care of their animals.

 

Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic. In his essay he claims when the founding fathers “wrote the constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility. …These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing.”  Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.

 

I believe this is true.  Democracy is a trust system.  If you don’t trust that everyone in the government will follow the laws and practice their freedoms lawfully, you have no system at all.  Most importantly is it that everyone follows the governing rules.  With this all the citizens shall be serving their communities by doing what the government needs them to do.  By exercising freedoms, the community will benefit.  I’m suggesting voting and other freedoms like it, running for office, is ways all can take advantage.