Skyview Academy
Gaston, Oregon
Teacher: Leslie Hansen

Responsibility in Liberty
By Andy Hansen
9^th grade

Today there are many arguments over our rights. Should we keep our individual rights? Or should we restrict our rights to protect ourselves? We must not take away our personal liberty, but we must also be responsible with our rights so that we don’t harm others.

Taking away our personal liberties would allow a corrupt government to rule without resistance. We cannot always trust that our government leaders will always be good. Hitler seemed to be a good person when he was first appointed chancellor of Germany, but he eventually took control of the government, and became a dictator. Giving up our right to keep and bear arms is an example of how we could make ourselves helpless against a corrupt government. Some say that taking away this right will protect us. We should not take away our right to keep and bear arms.…

Looking back in history, we can see how taking away our guns render us defenseless against the government. “The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate one and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, sixty million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.“ In the American Revolution, British General Gage, in Boston, ordered his troops to take the guns that rebels were stockpiling in Concord. The citizens were given warning and were able to stop the British from taking their guns. When government is trying to take control, one of the first things they will do is take away the people’s guns. Let us not make it easier for the government to harm us; we must defend our rights.

However, we also need to be responsible with our right to keep and bear arms. We need to learn how to use a gun properly, and we must know how to respond in different situations. One misfire and you might accidentally hit something besides the target. We must also keep guns away from children. We do not want to accidentally endanger children by keeping our guns where they can find them easily. If we are not responsible with our guns, then there is a temptation to take them away. Think of a small child with a toy. It is just fine if he uses the toy properly, but the second he starts to hit people with the toy, it will be taken away.

We should not use our rights to intentionally harm others. Freedom of speech is a right that has been used to harm others. An example of this is Pornography. Pornography has been argued to be freedom of speech. I disagree. Pornography puts forth no statement about anything and therefore cannot be considered speech. Pornography is the source of many problems. Dr. Mary Anne Layden said, "I have been treating sexual violence victims and perpetrators for 13 years. I have not treated a single case of sexual violence that did not involve pornography."  [I also read the following: ] “At a recent meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two-thirds of the divorce lawyers who attended said that excessive interest in online pornography played a significant role in divorces in the past year.”

Another right that has been abused is freedom of the press. The press is constantly publishing information in a way that brings across a false message. For example, there was an incident in Texas where the media reported that an elementary student had been assaulted by two teachers and the principal because he asked for a tissue. The story was completely one-sided and was only reported from the point of view of the student. My parents personally knew the teachers and principal and knew that this was not possible, yet the media turned the whole thing into a sensation that hurt the reputation of the teachers. The media, using their “right” to freedom of the press, hurt those teachers. What was the motivation behind this? Money. The media, instead of being responsible and telling the story as it was, made the story as sensational as possible. An exciting story will sell more newspapers then a not so exciting, true story. We must be responsible and not hurt others with our rights.

The framers of the Constitution gave us rights for a reason. They are to protect us from the government. We cannot let the government take away our rights. Without our rights, we cannot defend ourselves against a possibly corrupt government, but we must also use our rights responsibly, so that we don’t harm others.
 

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?

A: It means that when people do not understand the value of personal freedom, they are angered by the social inequalities created by it. I was not angered and I agree with his view. There are some that desire to attain great things in life. Others are happy to just get by. In our country, we all have the freedom to set our own goals. We should not restrict those with high goals so that they are equal with those that just want to get by. They are the ones that will achieve great things that will benefit society. Cures for diseases, new inventions, and other beneficial things will be produced by these people. They put great sacrifice into their goals, and they deserve to be rewarded.

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.

A: When people pursue their interests, they can make a contribution to society by providing their service to others. For example, if someone would like to open a store, they could open a store and provide easy access to goods for the members of the community.

          Chris Carney attributed the 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.

A: When the emperor passed the law to control prices, he tried to contain the human mind by controlling the peoples decisions. Instead of letting the people run the market in the way that works for them, he controlled all the decisions.

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.

A: She told that if someone has the right to keep and bear arms, but uses that right to shoot someone else, they are taking the right of life away from that other person.

When we were living in Texas, two teachers and a principal supposedly “assaulted” a boy because he asked for a tissue. Instead of looking into what really happened, the news media reported it only from the boy’s point of view, which was that he had been assaulted for asking for a tissue. The way the media reported it made it look like this report was the truth. The media, using their right of freedom of the press, took away the right of ‘innocent until proven guilty” and drug the names of the teacher and principal through the dirt without investigating what really happened first.

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.

A: Individual liberty is very powerful in that the citizens can band together against the government in great numbers, but the people can easily let the government take away their personal freedom in order to benefit the “greater good.” He relates individual liberty as the enemy of dictators when held by masses. I agree. A dictator wants to control all the people. If the people have individual freedom, then there cannot be a dictator.

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

A- We need to maintain our freedom, but still not become careless. We must do all we can to prevent crime, but not take away our freedom. We can make guns illegal, but it doesn’t prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally.

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?

A- I don’t agree either. We should focus on individual freedom instead of on protection of the community. Members of a community should then use that freedom to protect the community. In trying to protect the community, personal freedom may be taken away. We can try to take away guns in order to protect ourselves from criminals. This doesn’t really help us. It just endangers us. If someone would have had a personal firearm during the Virginia Tech shooting, then that person could have saved a lot of lives, but since no one had a personal firearm, they could not defend themselves.

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?

A- Smoking should be banned in public places. It is not fair to the non-smokers that they should have to leave if someone that smokes should enter the room since the smoke endangers their health. Since the smoker is the one that is endangering others health, they should only be able to smoke in designated areas so that the health of others isn’t endangered.

          I believe the Gun Free School Zones Act was not a good idea. It does not prevent people from bringing guns in illegally. This leaves the law abiding citizens without any protection.

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?

A- The Giver. I have read it. It is an excellent 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?

A- I believe that government will need more power as the nation grows in complexity, but the people should be the ones to grant the government power where need is seen. Also, any power the government receives should not take away our personal liberty.

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

 A-      1. Mandatory school attendance. If people would be responsible enough to educate themselves, then we wouldn’t need mandatory school attendance.

          2. Complicated Tax Laws. If people would be honest and submit their taxes, then we wouldn’t need huge and complicated tax laws that fill every loophole.

          3. Building Codes. If contractors would be responsible and build with quality, then we wouldn’t need building codes and inspectors to make sure the contractors aren’t doing shoddy work.
 

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.

A- I do not believe that people will always make the choices that will benefit their communities. Many people will let their greed and selfishness  control their choices. If people would always make the correct choices, then there would be complete peace in the world.

BACK