Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Mrs. Devra Parker
Mindless Submission or Sensible Resistance?
Word Count 754
By Matthew Gellhaus
12th Grade
Our government is the first of its kind and it is interesting to watch this “hybrid” do its balancing act. I say balancing act because it includes the religion against science, state vs. federal, and one man’s rights against another man’s rights. When this government was first given life from the “Declaration of Independence,” some of its first words were: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and these words are still known to every American born today. “Life” is to survive. [It] is our basic animal instinct to exist and thrive. “Liberty” is our power to choose, our ability to [compliment] our instincts with knowledge. “The pursuit of happiness” is the opportunity to enjoy our life.... So, what happens when one of these ideas is taken away?
Communism and Dictatorship is what happens! At first glance, they are the perfect government. The people are all equal, there are no classes, and everyone gets the same thing as everyone else no matter what.…
How do they get the equality? Simple; they remove freedom or liberty from the picture and replace it with an illusion. The biggest freedom a dictator removes is a people’s right to think independently. They do this by [providing] food, clothes, and other things until people stop making [these things] for themselves, and at that point, the dictator wins. He wins…the moment that people stop relying on themselves and begin relying on him…. [Soon] the stores start to close, the few people who are still independent cannot live and are forced to submit. The few [who] will not submit are then prosecuted for the crime of trying to hurt the common good for their own greedy reasons. The dictator makes everyone forget about his or her problems by blinding the people with gimmicks or rallying them against someone or something. The Romans had their Gladiators and Hitler had the Jews. In every communist government, there has always been [a scapegoat].…
[Often] liberty has been replaced with equality. [People] have nothing of their own and must only work for the benefit of the common good. Now, since everyone is working…[for] the same amount of food and shelter, no matter how much or little they do, everyone is happy. Right? Wrong, no one is happy, except for the people who were the scum of society to begin with because the people are stuck in this festering, stagnant swamp of a nation! Here, the only things that grow are twisted and mutated shells of their previous selves and nothing worth having will ever exist! All life in such a place becomes dull, unfeeling, and even dies, just like a slave’s! Slaves have no life! Slaves are only here for one reason: to serve others to sacrifice everything for everyone else! How can anyone stand for such a false sense of an existence that is nothing but a crumbling shell of what life really is meant to be?!…
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?
A1- I think that it means, if someone has made choices and worked hard will like that he or she is above the person who just sets there. However on the other hand if someone has another make all his/her choices, or if they do not like the way their life has turned out, they will want every one to be at their level and will be mad at people high up. I have to agree with him. In a truly free nation people are only equal in their choice to succeed.
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?
A2- By having competition, people are forced to do their best in order to get what they want. This, competition cause the economy to improve upon its self. He got these feeling from James Madison.
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.
A3- This whole event was exactly what the paper asked for. It tells how, if people are truly equal in ever thing no happiness can live. It is human nature to want, but it is gaining it through hard work, that gives us more then just want we wanted. Because by working we prove we are as good as anyone else and we have a right to it!
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.
A4- Kelly is referring to how everyone has rights. However, these rights only go so far. I have the right to own a gun but I do not have the right to murder. Because murder is take a persons right to live and to be safe. It is just like I have freedom of speech, but if I use that to get other people to comment crime I then loss that right.
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.
A5- He means that a single independent person is easily removed, but a group of independent people can gain power from each other. It is kind of like, a single snow flack dose not hurt anyone but an avalanche can destroy anything. So, yea I agree with him.
Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
A6- It is a trick question. I say this because, if we give up our freedom we become in danger of a dictatorship. I think we all know that means no safety.
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?
A7- Molly McGlone was the writer of that essay. As fore me I do not agree, either, because what has allowed the Constitution to live this long is its balance with everything. It gives only guide lines on how the government should be and it lets the generations to come think for themselves.
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?
A8- Yes, I agree. However, the ban on smoking was causing harm to others who did not smoke, therefore infringing upon those people’s rights. Now, the gun one is injust because, people within a 1000 Ft. of a school that have a gun dose not mean they are going to cause harm.
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?
A9- the book was The Giver by Lois Lowry. I have not read The Giver.
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?
A10- That is a tuff question, because nothing is black or white. It always depends on a person’s point of view. However, I can say that a government with too little, or too much power is very dangerous and rarely works. It is just like everything else we humans are invalid with, too less, or too much and we die. So, in the end I’m saying that the government needs power but we have to be careful in how much we grant it.
Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
A11- That is rather simple. Pick a law, any law. Gun control laws, speed limits, and hunting/fishing laws are just the tip of the ice burg. I read once that “if we were angels we would not need to be governed,” but I cannot remember where I read it. Anyways it means if we were responsible and had no greed we would not need governments or laws for we would do right always.
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.
A12- Yes and no. Yes, there are still people who have self respect and will take the responsibility for themselves. However, there are getting to be more and more punks who are too cowardly to own up to shit, and will blame who ever. Unfortunately, the responsible people are getting lower in number as the punks gain in number. So, I guess I lean more towards no.