Calvert Hall College
Towson, Maryland
Teacher: George Kropp
Assured Unintelligence or Probable Responsibility: The Government’s or the Individual’s Role in Balancing Society.
By Robert Sherron
11th Grade
Our system of government, as brought about by the Constitution, may very well be the most successful in human history. However, we have seen time and time again, that often those elected into office are corrupt, power-hungry, or simply mentally incapable of properly fulfilling their duties. It is when we allow these people to expand their control over us that the government breaks down.
As time flows onward, new situations arise which jeopardize the nation, smaller communities, or individuals. Sometimes these situations put these groups at odds with each other. It must be decided in each case which group’s needs outweigh the needs of the others. A treacherous balancing act needs to be performed, to ensure that society is protected from oppression. When we allow the government to decide, the individuals of power will often choose one of two outcomes. The first, whatever gives them more power. The second, whatever gives them more votes.
This has been demonstrated too often in recent history. Case number one is support of illegal immigrants. Both the current president and current majority party in congress support giving citizenship to those who for years benefited from all of our taxes without paying; ahead of those who wish to enter by following our laws. Clearly this is an imbalance favoring a few individuals while hurting both the common good for our present nation and law abiding future citizens, and a bid for the votes of these law breaking future citizens. Case number two is limitation of terms congressman can serve. Consistently such limitations have been voted down by those in office. Even those who voluntarily take these limitations upon themselves violate their promises when their time is up, because “the people need them.” What the people truly need is fresh leadership not corrupted by Washington. Case number three is embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research destroys an embryo as part of research for cures to benefit the common good.. This is considered by many to be the destruction of an individual. It is also considered by all to be a future contributing member of society. Even though embryonic stem cells have only been shown to cause tumors in test subjects, whereas adult stem cells have brought about cures, many politicians support further destruction of embryos because it is popular with ignorant voters. Case number five- the patriot act. While potentially robbing many Americans of their liberties, it was overwhelmingly supported by congress, with only 1 vote against it in the Senate and only 66 in the House, as it expanded the governments control over the people.
If we are to have an effective free society, the majority of these balancing acts need not rest on the decisions of these politicians, but by the responsibility of the people. The great majority of owners of firearms are responsible- it is the minority that go on shooting sprees. If the government put less restrictions on owning guns, the ratio of sane to insane people is not affected- but with many more sane people able to protect themselves, the actions of the insane have less of an effect overall. In this instance, by trusting the populace over the government, both the common good and individual liberty is promoted.
The above example effectively illustrates why personal responsibility is the true answer to finding this balance. Before we dump this responsibility into the laps of the masses however, we need to understand exactly what components form this responsibility. First is restraint. The individual needs to learn to master his emotions rather than vice-versa. Though one may wish to shoot those who anger you, one must follow logic over these rash actions. Second is an informed mind. The individual needs to read a newspaper, watch the news, or research on the internet, preferably all of the above. In order to be fully responsible for ones actions, one needs to fully understand the consequences of choosing one path over another. The third virtue required for this responsibility is compassion. The individual needs to develop a care for those who are less fortunate. By promoting the good of these individuals, the whole is strengthened. This compassion needs to be tempered by a sense of justice. While giving aid to every person in an unfortunate position may seem at first to only benefit the whole, by giving handouts to those who themselves choose to be in these positions only discourages self-advancement.
In the future, if we as a country wish to continue the tradition of our forefathers, that of a free society, we need to discontinue the short sighted, faulty, and idiotic practice of allowing the government to balance the needs of the individual against the common good, but rather take it upon ourselves to responsibly act in ways that benefit society without harming the individual.
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-Reiter meant that those people who are accustomed to restricted yet free societies, where whether they do their jobs laying down or sitting up they are paid the same, they will indeed be upset that the no longer receive handouts. I myself was not angered by the essay; it was a very informed analysis of the differences between equality and freedom, and I most certainly agree with him.
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-Carney is referring to James Madison’s feelings towards the nature of civic virtue in writing the Constitution.
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-Diocletian’s Edict of 301 attempted to directly control Rome’s economy. This was attempt to guarantee Rome’s economic safety by violating the individuals liberties. It was , of course, a miserable failure.
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- Her example is a fairly common illustration of this idea; an individual misusing his right to bear arms to inhibit another’s right to life, liberty and happiness. Another example, increasingly more relevant to our government today, is the (for now) foreign practice of health care for all. In order to insure that individuals who cannot afford health-care receive it, every individual is forced to pay for and receive idiotically poor healthcare, where it takes up to 6 months to even see a doctor. Politicians step in and, in order to guarantee the rights of the few, tear away the rights of the majority to effective health care.
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- Spencer means that while liberty is easy to take away from the people, when they do possess it, it can effect great change. He relates this concept to dictators; in order for them to survive, independence must be replaced with dependence on the despot. I personally agree with this assessment. Dictators throughout history, such as Castro, Stalin, Hitler, etc, have indeed gained power through this manner. When people are able to restore unto themselves any fragment of liberty, that is when they have become powerful enough to revolt and recover completely their freedom.
Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
A6- I would say that the latter option, destroying our freedom, is in and of itself making us in a way less safe, and thus the only option is the former.
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 agree with Molly McGlone. These were not reactionary men who merely chose their government they way they did because their old one ticked them off; they were geniuses who looked at history and figured out what worked and what didn’t. The nations that would cause us today to seek greater safety themselves allow little freedom- abandoning our freedom for safety would only join us to them.
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 agree, as nothing should take precedence in our system over the constitution, otherwise it falls apart. Smoking in public places does indeed infringe on other’s rights, as second-hand smoke has indeed found to be harmful to individual’s health. No constitutional right guarantees a smoker the right to do so in public places. The Gun Free School Zones Act both violates the constitutional right to bear arms, and infringes on the safety of others. It removes the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals who do not care whether guns are banned in a specific area or not. Thus I am personally for the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and against acts similar to the Gun Free School Zones Act
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- Romain refers to The Giver, by Louis Lowry. I have not as of yet read this book.
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 am with those who criticize this expansion of government. In every instance, “complex problems” can be solved with complex, at times unpopular, answers. An easy, inexpensive, and oftentimes popular solution is the expansion of government, thus politicians often chose this course.
Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
A11-First, many American teens irresponsibly abuse alcohol. In Europe, where in most countries there are no laws against underage drinking, such abuse is much more scarce. Responsibility has replaced the need for laws in these countries. Secondly, many politicians are currently pushing for legislation against the sale of violent video games. If parents began paying attention to what their kids were playing, or even simply began reading the rating on the box of the games they buy for their children, this responsibility would replace any need for these laws. Finally, if people were responsible on the road, there would be no need for traffic laws against speeding.
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 in Lehman’s assertion that that is indeed what the founding fathers attempted to bring about through their formation of the constitution. The latter belief that people would actually do this consistently because of the constitution is indeed idealistic. There have always been, and always will be, selfish individuals who attempt to work or change the system to benefit them while hurting the community. If this was seen less often in earlier times, this is only because in smaller communities, if an individual harmed the community, he would almost always harm himself as well.