Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Mrs. Devra Parker
Positive Influence
By Sarah Patten
12th grade
Derby, Kansas: Hitting a vending machine that stole your money is illegal. Dodge City, Kansas: It’s illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Lawrence, Kansas: No one may wear a bee in his hat. Russell: Musical car horns are banned. According to lawguru.com, these are a few examples of some of the most absurd Kansas laws to exist. I know what you are thinking; if they are pointless laws then why do we even have them? The answer is values; the values of Americans now. The people in today’s society are not taught the same values they once were. It is all too common to see kids that don’t understand the laws and do not follow the rules. Where are their parents? Where is the person that [teaches] them…right [from]…wrong?
We’ve all heard the stories of how the nun used a ruler to slap your grandpa for saying a bad word, when he was a kid. Also, how granddad got out the belt when your mom was little because she and her siblings were fighting. Although these punishments were harsh, one followed the rules after a disciplinary action like that. He/She did not need a reminder of the rules either. Today, however, the government is playing the parent. They are putting their regulations on all of us. Are these regulations really necessary or should we all be responsible for ourselves and the other citizens around us? Is it really realistic to believe that every person in the United States can function with [few] restrictions? Is it safe to assume everybody knows what actions are correct and which are incorrect?
No, not every child has been taught by his/her parents what acceptable behavior is, and not every parent has the same ideas about law and rules. Back in the days of our grandparents, there were standards…. People [knew how] to act in public. Children were expected to be quiet, respectful, and courteous, and they were [scolded] if they were not. In present times often there are no [such] expectations…. There are no standards [for] acceptable [behavior]. The government has tried to step in and create that standard. It is sad that the government feels the need to do that.… Laws show us how we are supposed to behave. [We must follow rules].… A rule is defined as, a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, or arrangement according to [an Internet dictionary.] … Maybe if there was an etiquette class in every high school, it would help students learn how to be respectful and responsible. It just comes down to the people and where their values lie.
I honestly think that if the country [disregarded law] for a day and no [government entity] kept us in line, many people would get hurt doing stupid things. Everyone would have his/her own idea of what is right…. Americans would begin to fight amongst themselves, and the hospitals would be swamped with people.
Although many people believe that laws interfere with their individual liberties and [prefer] not to have them, the simple truth is, we as citizens cannot function without them.…
It is nine o’clock at night and you just got off of work. You dig in your pockets to find the car keys, but when you look up at the parking stall your car is gone. If you lived in a country [without laws] you would be in a tight place. Your car would be gone, and no one would care because they would be too concerned with themselves…. However, you live in America, which so far has been able to maintain a pretty healthy balance of individual liberties and [government restrictions]. Therefore, you know that you can pick up your cell phone and [ask for assistance from] a police officer….
So, as Americans we should be thankful for what freedom and happiness we are allowed to grasp and know that not everyone is given this right. We should also be willing to give a little in order for someone else to see what the American Dream really is while working together for the common good, even though we may encounter a few silly laws along the way. Alabama: Bear wrestling matches are prohibited. California: Bowling on the sidewalk is illegal. Indiana: One may not sniff glue. Massachusetts: No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.
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?
I agree in some respects; some Americans have become use to total freedom and have decided to use it to its fullest. They will push the fact that they are not equal in order to “inch” their way up the totem pole. Some of these people are also the ruthless bandits that would sue to gain a dime. I was not angered by his essay. I have chosen to keep an open mind while reading these essays because in their own way each has a valuable point to make. However, that does not mean that I fully agree with all of them.
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?
He attributed these feelings to James Madison, a founding father of the constitution. He probably used Madison because he was one of the must passionate fathers. He was able to look at society threw each sociologic view; he looked and the conflicts of the British and America. He looked at the function of every person and group in the newly forming states, and he looked each American and the way interacted with each other. Madison was in a since a sociologist and has been give great credit for his enthusiasm toward the making of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyal discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.
In the example the people gave up freedom so the government could take care of them. The people choose not to be responsible and not to think about the common good, this lead to their own downfall. It goes to show you that there are always people that will be looking for a way to make other people to take care of them. Some people always look for the easy way out. On the other hand it goes to show you that their must be many individuals that great contribute to the common good in the United States. If these selfless people didn’t exist in our society then might fall like the Edict of 301.
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.
In her essay, Kelly, is basically saying that the right to bear arms is given in the constitution, but the right to shoot a person is not. You have the right to keep the gun, but you do not have the right to use it to infringe other’s civil liberties. This is much like when a person smokes in a public place. The constitution doesn’t say that they cannot smoke but people wish to make a law that forbids that. There is a fine line that people should have to be responsible for their own actions.
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.
One person with individual stands alone he is no threat to a dictator. However if the amount of people grow, then they become like dominos, and spread outward and develop into powerful force. Yes, I agree with this assessment. We are about to see a huge example of this in North Korea. Their leader, Kim Jong Il, struggles to keep power over his people. Everyday videos and other symbols of US freedom are snuck over the boarders to the citizens. Kim Jong Il must keep his people brainwashed in order to keep his power over them. Someday in the near future if things continue the way they are now, the younger generation will over throw Kim Jong Il. They will stand together and demand to have more individual rights.
Q6-Luke Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
Basically, you are asking me do I trust the people around me to behave even if there is no law to do so. Do I trust my neighbors with their freedom or should we take that way to insure that citizens are fallowing the rules and not harming each other? This is a very hard question to answer because every person around me is different. They have different religious beliefs that influence their personal decisions. They have different family lives that may teach them to share with many siblings or not to, because they are the only child. I think the government and the people must meet in the middle. We as citizens should have basic laws which guide us to make the right decisions when we are uncertain what is right. We should not destroy our freedom but it should have limits. People should also be responsible for themselves.
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?
Molly McGlone talked about this view in her paper. I don’t agree either. I think that today’s society is a pretty healthy balance right now. Americans need to remember that they are part of a community first and individuals second. Each division of government has certain powers, for example, the local government can establish curfews and other laws dealing small issues of an entity area. A person has the power to make his own decisions and think for himself. Everything has a certain amount of power and people should be happy with that amount of power. If they are not they should go to the government in a respectful fashion instead of just going out and breaking the laws.
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 the
constitution is the law of the land. Some of the laws that have been passed
may go too far in some people’s eyes. The banning of public smoking and the
Gun Free School Zone Act are examples of these laws that go to far. I do
agree that these laws may go too far but I prefer that they don’t smoke in
public places. I think that people should be respectful of the other people
in the room. If no one in the room objects then they should be able to smoke
in that place, same with the Gun Free School Zone Act. Making this a law
over steps freedoms given in the constitution. People just need to
respectful and responsible for their own actions, they shouldn’t need a
punishment to encourage it.
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 was named The Giver, written by Lois Lowry. I have not read this book but Annie St. Romain has inspirited me to do so soon.
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?
I believe that society does become more complex as it grows. Also, I believe that the government thinks complex problems can only be temporarily fixed until they fade away. To be a Congressmen today must be a challenge, because there are so many cultures here in the United States. How is one able to make rules and laws that fit all their needs and desirers?
Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
There are many laws in place today that people truly should not need but personally I like them. Americans should not need a law to tell them that they should slow down to 25 mph in a school zone, but due to dim people this law is a law. It is the same story with animal care laws and child negligence laws. If people were responsible to take care of their children and pets we wouldn’t need these laws! If you’re going to have a child or pet then you have already made the decision to be responsible for them. If you’re not going to be responsible then don’t have them! United States citizen should not need laws to enforce that!
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.
Yes, I would agree with this. If you think about everyone has heard someone say that they have never been in trouble with the law and their proud of it. To some people it actually means something to do the right thing, but for others they just want to do whatever they feel like whether it hurts someone else or not. Anyone that fallows the law should pride themselves, however anyone that goes beyond and helps other people before themselves is a real modern hero. I believe that every person wants to do the right thing and wants to be respected and admired. We all just fall short to evil of temptation which keeps us for that goal.