Calvert Hall College High School

Baltimore, Maryland

Teacher: Mr. George Kropp

 

Balancing Common Good and Individual Liberty

By Andrew Herpel

11^th grade

 

 

Throughout American history, man has strived to promote the common good.  We also have fought for years to promote individual liberty in numerous occasions as seen in the Revolutionary War, the Cold War, and even the Civil War.  But, how do we balance individual liberty and common good?

 

As Lawrence Reed said, “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.”  This quote demonstrates how common good decreases as individual liberty increases, and vice versa.  As people gain more freedom and liberty, common good decreases because of increased focus on the self.  As common good increases in society, individual freedom decreases.  This can be seen in a communist form of government.  However, we need both individual liberty and common good for society to thrive in the best way it can.  But again, how do we balance individual liberty and common good to promote the ideal society?

 

The only way to promote this ideal society is through personal responsibility.  We must work together to improve our society.  We all have the right and responsibility to promote individual liberties and common good so that we can reach this goal.  There is no other feasible way to promote this ideal society.

 

Some say that the government should step in to solve this issue.  However, the one problem with the government is that, when the government steps in to help, everything has to be done the way they say it has to be done.  For example, I have been going to private school since Kindergarten.  Every year, my school would get state money to get books so that the parents would not have to pay too much money on books.  However, the school has to buy certain books that the state government has picked out.  If we let our government step in to improve our society, things will be done by their design instead of ours. 

 

Also, if we let the government make the solutions to improve our society, we will not get that feeling of success and connectedness as a whole.  If we work together as a whole, we will get closer to each other and trust each other as a society.  This can be seen in the aftermath of 9/11.  After that catastrophic event, everyone in the nation bonded together and helped those in need.  People contributed donations to help those families who lost loved ones in the attack.  We worked together to help New York City fight back and return back to its original form.  For a few months, our nation worked together to promote the common good and individual liberties.  For those few months, we as a nation felt connected; we felt like a nation. 

 

Just imagine what it would be like to have that feeling in our society again.  It does not have to be a national thing.  It can just be in our community.  It does not even have to take another catastrophic event again.  It just takes everyone to assume their personal responsibility to promote the common good and individual liberties.

 

When everyone works together, anything is possible.  As Joshua Spenser comments, “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.”  Individual liberty can do anything from removing a powerful dictator from power to building a park in our neighborhood.  However, we all need to take up our personal responsibility to achieve this.  As the saying goes, you are only as strong as your weakest link.  If one person fails to assume his responsibility, it will only become that much harder to promote the common good in our society. 

 

Even the founders of our nation knew the importance of personal responsibility.  Instead of making a government in which the ruler or a certain class has the power, they made a government in which the people voted for their representatives.  They also gave the majority of the power to the people.  The people are given numerous rights and liberties instead of having all the power in the national government.  This can be seen in the Bill of Rights.  Everyone, no matter their class, race, sex, or age, is given the same rights.  Everyone has the right to bear arms, petition, etc.  This gives us the liberties we deserve as a human being, but it is our responsibility to use them to promote common good.  Overall, we as members to our society must assume our personal responsibility to promote the common good and the protection of our individual liberties in our society.

 

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 believe that Justin meant that the freedom we have to choose how we live our lives has prevented ourselves from seeing this inequality.  Since we are given the freedom to choose how we live our lives, we tend to not look at the inequality since we strive to become better.  However, if our freedom were removed, we would recognize the inequality.  In this society without freedom, we would see the inequality since we can not strive to better ourselves with freedom.  I agree with the things that Justin said.  I also believe that we are all equal in principle but we are not equal economically.  However, we all have the same freedom. 

 

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-In this quote, Chris is explaining what James Madison felt about the common man.  Madison felt that the common man in pursuing their own interests would help the common good.  However, this assumes that the common man is naturally good.  As seen from Chris’ example, some people fake injuries so that they can get help from the government.  These people are pursuing self-interest, yet they are not promoting common good.  Chris attributed these feelings to 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-The Edict of 301 put restrictions and wage limits on everyone in society.  It also gave the government the power to control the grain industry to feed the people.  As a result, this edict took away the right of the people and made everyone equal, causing the economy of Rome to turn into chaos.  This relates to her essay topic in the fact that she argues that everyone should take personal responsibility for their own lives.  This example of a time when the government took control of everyone’s lives proves her argument.

 

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- She gives us the example of one’s right to bear arms.  If one person uses this right and ends up shooting someone, everyone suffers.  The right is taken away from everyone because of one stupid person’s mistake.  My example is back to World War II.  Numerous amounts of Japanese people living in the United States were arrested and put in concentration areas just because they were Japanese.  The Americans of this time took away the rights of the Japanese people as citizens of the United States.

 

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 one’s individual liberty can be easily destroyed or prevented.  However, our individual liberty can be very powerful if we use it correctly.  He relates this to dictators by stating that each person’s individual liberty can pose a threat to his power.  In order to destroy this, dictators can give out free handouts like food in order to win over the masses and therefore limiting or destroying their individual liberty.  I do not agree with the assessment that individual liberty is fragile.  In fact, it is the most powerful thing we have.  While he does make a valid point about the dictator’s attempts to limit individual liberty, they can never fully destroy it.  Everyone has the liberty to stand up for what they believe in.  It is just that some people will disagree with that.  Despite that, everyone has the individual liberty to make their own choices, even if that is to follow a dictator.

 

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

 

A6-I believe that in today’s society we will destroy our freedom to be safe up to a certain point.  While we will not succumb to a communist state to make us safe, we will deny some liberties like the right to bear arms to protect ourselves.

 

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- I also disagree with the quote.  The framers of the Constitution just recently finished a war in which they fought for their freedoms and liberties.  Also, they still left room for amendments and new laws in which we can change or add on some things to the Constitution due to our modern society.  Therefore, I strongly believe that the framers of the Constitution would not change it at all since they believed so strongly in everyone’s liberties.

 

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-I disagree with this statement because the Constitution was written over 230 years ago, and today’s society is much different from society back then.  If we were to say that the Constitution should take precedent over any law, slavery would still be in effect since the Constitution allowed slavery.  As for the ban on smoking in public areas, I agree with this ban to a certain degree.  I believe that no one should smoke in a public area like an elevator where no one has the choice whether or not that person smokes.  However, I believe that people can smoke in their apartment as long as the landlord allows it.  As for the gun free school zones act, I agree with it fully.  Allowing a gun to be close to the school puts these kids in danger.  It is not just crazy people that will kill kids, but also the possibility of an accidental fire or a ricochet that hits a kid.  In some cases, I believe that the Constitution can be amended in.

 

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 name of this book is The Giver by Lois Lowry.  Yes, I have read this book and agree with her statements about it.

 

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- I believe that our individual liberty is threatened when the government steps in to solve a problem in our society.  Whenever our government steps in, we lose some liberty because we can not choose how we want the problem to be solved.  Instead, the government tells us what to do.  It also takes away the feeling of connectedness in our society.

 

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

 

A11- One responsibility is for the parents to restrict the kinds of movies that they watch.  That would eliminate the laws like the age restrictions on R rated movies.  Another example is each person’s responsibility to know common sense.  This would eliminate the stupid laws that make companies put the WARNING HOT labels on coffee when everyone knows that coffee is suppose to be hot.  Finally, another example is for teens to be responsible drivers.  This would eliminate all the laws like no driving after midnight, no driving non-family members, etc.

 

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- I believe that most people will promote common good in communities with their individual liberties.  However, there will always be those few people that work against common good.  These people are the drug-dealers, the murderers, and even just selfish people who would sue someone because they slipped and got a scrape while walking on another person’s driveway.  While many people will make choices to promote common good, there will always be those few people that work against it.