Calvert Hall College
Baltimore, Maryland
Teacher: Mr. George Kropp
Responsibility the Ideal
By James Gregory
11th Grade
Throughout the course of history there has always been an ongoing struggle between those who hold power and those who are subjected to power. The struggle can be…summed up to those who are subjected fight for individual liberty and those who hold the power fight to take it. This pattern can be seen in almost every civilization throughout the history of mankind. From the very beginning of the first crude laws of Hammurabi to the organized communism practiced in the USSR, civilizations have…had laws and penalties created by those who hold the power in the culture. In some civilizations there has been a balance between laws that are needed to protect the common good and laws that secure individual rights and liberty for the citizens. Laws designed to protect the common good often times encroach on individual liberties. In other civilizations there has been no individual freedoms given to the citizens, only laws that secure the "common" good. One fact has been present throughout history [and is] true [today]; every man yearns for freedom. How much a man yearns for his freedom varies, but his desire can never be smothered.
An obvious question presents its self when discussing the struggle between governments and its people. How can these two parties work to resolve their issues and what characteristic must be developed in order for there to be less need for laws that protect the common good and laws that protect individual liberty? One answer to this is responsibility. The role of personal responsibility in a society can be tremendous. Obviously, it is impossible for all people to practice personal responsibility all the time but if the majority of citizens were to fulfill their responsibilities to society…then there would be no more need for the majority of laws. Because this is only an ideal the country must find a balance between the amount of laws protecting individual rights and laws for the common good.
There are many laws today that protect individual liberties and protect the common good. Some laws, however, [do not]. It is these meaningless laws that a society must be concerned about. For example, laws that state one must wear a seat belt or wear a helmet when ridding a bike take away personal liberties and do not protect the common good. The common good is simply the rest of society. It seems silly to think that making someone wear a seat belt or a helmet is protecting the rest of society. Some laws that protect against the common good are necessary. For instance, laws that prohibit drunk driving and make the penalty extremely harsh are excellent laws. Drunk drivers kill many innocent people every year and in doing so violate the common good by denying them [the victims] the right to live. For them [drunk drivers] to be allowed to get off easy even if they do not cause any damage would be irrational because it would not motivate them to stop their dangerous habits. …
Gun laws that make it illegal for people to hunt with riffles in certain areas are needed because of people’s irresponsibility. If all hunters were responsible enough to know their surroundings before they shoot their gun then these laws would be unnecessary. However, this is not the case, therefore, laws that make it clear where and where not to hunt are important even though they take away some personal liberty.
Before the collapse of the USSR there was an on going battle between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. The USA stood for individual freedom and personal liberty while the USSR stood for equality and fairness. In the end the USA won because of the strength of its economy. The reason its economy was so strong was because the people had the freedom to choose what type of career they wanted and what type of life they wanted to live. This example shows the importance of individual liberty.
There will always be laws to protect the common good, but as a nation and a culture, this country must realize the importance of protecting the liberties of the people. This is what the country was founded upon and this is why countless lives have been sacrificed. Once individual liberties are gone it will be extremely costly to replace them. As a quote from the movie V for Vendetta beautifully states, "The people should not fear their government, the government should fear their people”.…The question one has to ask then is what freedoms will this generation give up to the government that can never be replaced?
Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading
Question One
– 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?
Answer – Justin is simply stating that a person from a more socialist country than America might view America as a country of inequality. This is because that person is not used to the amount of freedom that is offered in America. However, with this freedom comes the possibility that some might not take advantage of the opporotunities America offers; for example, the homeless and poor.
Question Two – Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.” To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?
Answer – This quote is referring to James Madison and his ideas on how to modify the idea of common good for America. As the quote states he felt that if everyone in America just tried to do their best they would see for themselves than America as a whole would prosper and the common good would be met.
Question Three - 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.
Answer – Faith Doyle is trying to show how when the government takes away the people’s right to choose, then the culture suffers. In Rome this is exactly what happened when the edict took away the freedom of commerce.
Question Four - 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.
Answer - Kelly Lanier uses the example of bearing arms to show how certain rights can be used against other people to violet their rights. However, Kelly Lanier's example of someone killing another person because of the right to bear arms is somewhat flawed. The fault does not lie in the right to bear arms but with the person who decided to commit murder. A similar example would be some one who is driving recklessly and kills another person. The solution is not to ban driving but to force people to follow the rules of the road.
Question Five - 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.
Answer - Joshua Spencer could not be closer to the truth with his assessment of liberty and its delicacy. His depiction of a dictatorship is also very accurate. Liberty is very important and, as Joshua Spencer pointed out, must be protected. Without it there is no incentive and no progress.
Question Six - Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
Answer - The question, unfortunately, is not up to me but to the American people as a whole. We, as a nation, need to remember why this country was founded in the first place. Safety was never one of the highlighting factors but liberty, freedom, and independence were. As Luck Hall stated, many lives were sacrificed for this dream to become a reality.
Question Seven - 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?
Answer - Absolutely not. The Founding Fathers were never willing to sacrifice liberty for the economy in their day and I do not think they would have been willing to do so in our day either. Many decisions, such as the embargo set up by President Adams, did anything but help the economy, but they did help protect our freedom.
Question Eight - “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?
Answer - A law should never be held above the Constitution unless it has undergone a certain process and would therefore be called an amendment. In regards to the laws against smoking and guns, the issue is complicated. While the laws do seem to be achieving good results, one must wonder if these are not the beginning of a slippery slope. When people’s rights begin to be taken away, even if they are undesirable, it is dangerous. Liberty is a delicate gift and once stolen it is extremely costly to replace.
Question Nine - 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?
Answer - The book’s title is The Giver and no, I have not read it but it sounds interesting.
Question Ten - “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?
Answer - The answer to the question lies in the very heart of the structure of government. The more power a country gives its government the less freedom the people have. This is just a fact and because of this it would seem to me that the best solution would be to give the least amount of power to the government in order to preserve freedom.
Question Eleven - Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
Answer - If humans were responsible there would be no need for any laws. The law that states one must pay taxes or they can be put in jail would be unnecessary if humans were responsible and honest enough to pay their own taxes. There would be no need for speed limits if humans were responsible enough to drive according to the surroundings. In fact, there would be no need of a law against illegal immigration because people would be responsible enough to become a citizen the legal way. To imagine a world were everyone is responsible is to imagine perfection, but one can only imagine.
Question Twelve - 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.
Answer - People are, unfortunately, naturally evil and with this evil comes selfishness. Because of this it is rare to see anyone making decisions that will benefit the community over himself. If everyone were to make decisions that were for the good of the community then the world would be perfect.