Calvert Hall College
Baltimore Maryland
Teacher: George Kropp
Responsibility: The Key to Liberty
By Timothy Fromm
11th Grade
Personal responsibly plays a key role in balancing individual liberty and the common good. The extremes on both ends have never worked out, as can be seen in communism and anarchy. Communism was for the common good, but did not make the people content. Anarchy was for complete individual liberty which leads to the harm of others. Equilibrium is necessary for people to live peacefully. This can be obtained by personal responsibility.
The Constitution of the United States was written to favor the common good more so than individual liberty. However, as times changed the government allowed for amendments that led to increased rights for the people. Changes would be made like the 13th amendment that abolished slavery. These changes completely altered the way the United States ran but promoted individual liberty. Before it was thought that slavery was for the common good, because it helped the citizens of that time. As the country evolved they realized that the slaves had rights too, so they abolished slavery. They also…[gave more] people the right to vote. As the world changes, there are new ideals for individual liberty, and the Constitution is able to change to fit those ideals.
Personal responsibility could create a balance because people need to know where to draw the line. In the case of drinking and laws pertaining to it, if people were responsible enough not to drive while intoxicated, there would be no need for the laws. Others would feel safer on the roads and that would help the common good. Right now people do not think and end up killing others on the road which takes away the right to life. If people only took responsibility for their actions, the world would be better.
Another example is online predators. Parents need to realize the threat to their children whenever they sign on to their websites. The cases of kids being abducted and killed because they found someone online are due to negligence and ignorance. The parents should know that they should not let their children meet with the people online, or share [their own] information online. And if they did not know about it, they could have been responsible enough to block the sites or make sure their children were not doing something wrong. Responsibility by parents could save the lives of many children.
Government involvement in society to promote the common good is helpful to an extent. If a government completely restricted what people ate, bought, and did, the people would not be happy. Even though this would make people equal, it would not make them happy. Freedom is a promise in the US Constitution, and the government is continuously tearing it away with new laws. These laws might help the common good and make people equal, but people are not content because these [same laws] inhibit their freedom. One example is abortion and the government’s [desire] to ban it. This has caused a big rift in society separating the pro-choice and the pro-life. If the government allowed people to make their own choices, would people be happy? No, because the pro-life people would be strongly opposed to it. But if the government bans it, the pro-choice people will be upset. So there is no easy answer to the problems, but if people were responsible would there be a problem in the first place? People treat sex as just something to do, and do not think of the consequences. When an underage girl gets pregnant because she was irresponsible and she wants an abortion, it causes problems. Personal responsibility can eradicate any abortion arguments. One irresponsible action can lead to another and eventually there is a huge problem that affects the common good. This can also be seen in the issue of capital punishment. If people did not get themselves into situations where capital punishment was brought into question, there would not be a problem. But since personal responsibility is sometimes ignored, people end up on death row, and then the government and society needs to decide whether capital punishment is just. [The dilemma:] It does support the common good because people no longer have to worry about that person harming them. However, it takes away that person’s right to life which is an individual liberty.
There is a delicate balance between individual liberty and the common good…. What is right for one might not be right for the other. Even though there is a struggle between individual liberty and the common good, personal responsibility can help [reduce] it. If people would just step up and take care of themselves, it would strengthen the common good and make the world a better place.
Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading
1. 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 think Justin meant that people from countries where there is less freedom will not understand the way America works. He thinks that the inequality of Americans is due to their freedom, and others do not understand that. I disagree with Justin, because people do not have a choice to be homeless, and they can not just chose to get a job and become wealthy. Most jobs will not hire someone without any experience. Social statuses in America are somewhat based on Individual liberty but not entirely.
2. 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 attributes the feelings to James Madison. Madison thought that people pursuing their interests would help the common good because everyone would be free to choose what they want and be happy with it. If everyone worked for what they desired, society would grow healthily.
3. In the next to last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discusses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.
The Edict called for the government to control the people and supply everyone with equal shares of food and goods. This caused chaos and restricted the freedom of the people. Diocletian thought he was making everyone happy, but ended up hurting his people.
4. 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.
She gives the example of when someone bears and arm using his right to bear arms, and he shoots another person taking away their right to life. Those two people had the same rights, but one took the rights of the other with is diminishing the common good. Another example of this would be abortion which also takes away the right of the infant to live.
5. 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.
He states that dictators see individual liberty of the masses a threat and they need the people to be dependent on them. I agree because dictators such as Hitler got the people’s support by guaranteeing them happiness.
6. Luke Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
I think that Americans will eventually destroy their freedom in order to keep it safe. We are constantly changing laws to protect our freedoms, but in turn destroying those of others. An example is capital punishment, in how people want protection by ridding themselves of threats. But they are taking away those people’s right to life.
7. Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution’s framers might have ‘put great emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty’, had they seen the world today.”? She doesn’t agree. Do you?
I agree with Molly McGlone in that the Constitution’s framers did a good job in making sure that it is flexible for changes to be made. As the world changes amendments can be made to make the Constitution more applicable to modern society.
8. “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 fell about these two issues?
I disagree because the world is constantly changing and if a new law can achieve desirable results, then it should definitely be put into effect. I support both the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act because they protect people and are for the common good. Second hand smoke is deadly and harms innocent people if someone is smoking in public.
9. 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 name of the book is The Giver, and yes I have read it.
10. “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 Kesse Veit’s essay. Which side of the issue do you support and why?
I believe that if the government has those powers, issues can be solved. Without the government restraining some things, there would be utter chaos.
11. Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
Some examples of personal responsibility replacing need for laws are the use of drugs, movie ratings and admittance to them, and drinking age limits.
12. 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 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 do not believe that, because there are so many people in the world today who ignore other people’s rights and harm others.