Required Reading 2007
The Role of Personal Responsibility In Balancing Individual Liberty and the Common Good

Selected essays from the same 1999 Contest

Will We Exchange Our Freedom For Security?

"Should we have no government and let everyone do as he feels? Or should we have a totalitarian government like the one in the novel 1984 by George Orwell, where the people are told what to do and think? The answer is a compromise of the two, and the line should be drawn when behavior has a massive negative effect on others. Men who had just received their liberty and knew how important it was, created individual liberties. Crimes should have punishments, but prevention of these crimes should be the first priority and this crime prevention is not removing the means to commit a crime, but removing the will to do so.

In 1789, the U.S. Constitution set up the boundaries for government. The secret, however, to the Constitution’s longevity is that these boundaries weren’t dark, immovable lines; they are gray areas in which it is the three branches of government’s duty to make judgments about. Not only do these gray areas leave a lot to be interpreted, but also amendments can even change these gray areas permanently. Of all the decision about these gray areas, the one that is the most important and the one that most often comes up is the argument between individual liberty and the common good.

'The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.' George Washington’s quote from his Farewell Address is a powerful reminder to liberty’s importance to our founding fathers. These men risked their life and saw many brothers die so that they could have freedom. It has been so long since America’s freedom has been tested that Americans have forgotten just how important it is. People want their freedoms taken away to protect them from some man with a gun. They forget that thousands died to give them the freedom to make their own laws. Any man in China, who has no political freedom, would trade places with an American. This man from China would take the risk that he could be gunned down by a disgruntled employee; he would know that the risk would be worth being free.  Even if the founding fathers could see the future with its risks of violence, they would never have taken away freedoms.

Americans shouldn’t take their own freedoms away, so how are Americans going to be protected from the Timothy McVays of the world? We must work to prevent the crimes from ever happening. Woodrow Wilson said, 'Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American…. America is the only idealistic nation in the world.' It does sound very idealistic to say the United States must keep people from committing crimes. Yet there are some things that the government can do to prevent crimes. The government must work to improve the inner cities that leave children with no choice but to break the law to survive; must work to break up the prisons that in effect make criminals stronger and more hardened. In these prisons we are training our criminals to be more effective. Is that was we want? Instead we must try our best to train our criminals to contribute to society. Currently we release criminals with no hope for a job. They are forced back into crime. If we would do these things to prevent crime, there would no need to remove personal liberty.

Whatever method we pick to reduce crime, we must never choose to take away freedoms such the right to own a gun. Though assault weapons are without purpose and should be illegal, pistols used for personal protection and weapons used for hunting should never be regulated. The Supreme Court was justified in its ruling against the Gun-Free School Zones Act. We must teach children to be responsible with guns not try and destroy the gun’s existence.

Gun control, prisons, and crime are all sensitive issues. They affect our families and us every day. There will be many debates in future years as new technologies are developed and old issues continue to be fought over. As George Washington said in his Inaugural Address, America is 'the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.' It is our duty through our courts and our votes to decide on these issues. Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe? Instinctively we want to protect ourselves, but we must remember many have died to give us these freedoms; so we must take the small risk of death for the great reward of freedom."
Luke Hall, Harrisburg High School, Harrisburg, Illinois

The Fine Line Between
Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility

There is currently much debate about where to draw the line between individual liberty and community welfare.  Some people believe that personal liberties must be taken away in order for the community as a whole to thrive.  Others believe that citizens should retain all of their rights and avidly fight against losing them for the welfare of the community.  I believe that citizens should be able to have the rights granted to them constitutionally as long as they have the common sense and the responsibility not to abuse those rights and privileges they possess.

Our forefathers designed this country so that individuals would have great personal freedom.  This made sense because the founders of the United States of America were trying to escape British tyranny when they founded this nation.  In fact, they took drastic measures to prevent any possibility of dictatorship.  They granted citizens many rights and created a weak central government with no chief executive under the Articles of Confederation.  In one way this was surprising.  With the very freedom given to the citizens came great power due to the little protection offered to the nation as a whole.  So, determined to not be controlled by anyone, the founders of this country made it hard to control at all.  However, I believe they did the right thing because if they had proposed little individual freedom, the citizens would have overthrown the government because it derived its power from the consent of the governed.  A society in which citizens have few liberties could have possibly resulted in a community similar to the one described in Lois Lowry's The Giver.  In that book, the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.  'Every curtailment of individual liberty may bring an improvement in some aspect of well-being for the community.  But at what cost?'  Are we to one day become robots controlled by the government?  Does that really result in the betterment of the community?  I think not.  While governmental power may never reach that point in reality, the book illustrated the dangers of a society in which the government has too much power over the citizens' lives.  Therefore, I think the forefathers were right in providing citizens with many personal liberties.

While the debate rages on about how much liberty is too much, the question about who should decide liberty limitations is also causing great controversy.  Many people including Schoenbrun believe that this power belong to the police and the judicial system.  Congress seems to see the power to limit individual rights as theirs and has been proposing many acts to constrain personal freedom.  Such proposals include gambling regulations, firearm ownership restrictions, and sexual conduct restrictions.  'Underlying this all is a philosophical rejection of free will and responsibility.'  Personal responsibility is the key to balancing individual liberty and the common good, and there seems to be an increasing lack of responsibility in today's society as a whole.  Many citizens do not seem to understand that although they have the opportunity to act in a certain way, their behavior is left to their discretion.  They do not seem to realize that they do not have to push privileges to their limits.  For example, I went out last weekend and did not have a curfew.  I took it upon myself to be home at a reasonable time and was home well before midnight when I could have probably stayed out later.  Therefore, I surprised my parents by not abusing the privilege that they had granted me.  Had I come home really late, I probably would have been given a specific curfew the next time I went out.  Instead, I have the reward of being able to use my own judgment.  If my parents can trust me, a high school sophomore, to set my own curfew, I believe America should be able to trust its citizens to have the responsibility and common sense not to abuse their rights.  I believe that it is a shame that a society of civilized human beings has to rely on laws as their code of conduct instead of following Jiminey Cricket's advice and letting their consciences be their guides.  It is also my belief that it is ridiculous for the courts and police to be in charge of limiting personal rights although it seems necessary since people do not seem to be able to act responsibly on their own.

One particular issue regarding personal rights that has aroused a great deal of controversy is the issue of gun restrictions for schools.  Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act, prohibiting the presence of guns within 1,000 feet of a school.  Later this law was declared unconstitutional.  The government had based the act on its power to regulate commerce, but the Supreme Court justices proclaimed that basis unfounded, saying that the issue of guns at school was not related directly enough to commerce.  'What we want...is a compromise between a totally free market and complete government control.'  I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision and believe that the 'high court may be turning back the clock to a period in judicial history when it let the world of business and industry do just about anything it wanted.'  By forbidding this act to become national law and leaving the decision up to the state governments, the risk of widespread violence increased.  I think the Supreme Court justices made an unwise decision that was not necessarily for the good of society and 'when justices abuse their authority, we are all victims."  While I seriously doubt that gun carriage is legal at many, if any, schools, the possibility does exist.  Also, many people may assume the belief that since the Supreme Court did not outlaw guns at or near schools that such action is not bad.  This could lead to a twisted sense of propriety and an easily abused privilege.  However, I do concede that outlawing the Gun-Free School Zones Act has its benefits.  It is in keeping with the Constitutional right to bear arms and it keeps gun possession from becoming one more former right of American citizens.

 It is essential to keep individual liberty from becoming extinct. I agree with Patrick Henry's statement, 'Give me liberty or give me death!' because to me a life without liberty is a fate worse than death.  If every citizen had enough pride, responsibility and common sense to obey the laws, personal liberties would remain instituted and society would be safe.

Annie St. Romain, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

“All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten,” says Robert Fulghum. When you think about it, he's right.  We learn the rules of life right in the beginning, that first year of school.  “Share everything.  Play fair.  Don't hit people.  Put things back where you found them.  Don't take things that aren't yours.”  If everyone lived by this set of rules from kindergarten on up, the world would be a perfect place.

 Unfortunately, nothing is perfect.  Do you remember the little boy who always stole your cookies?  How about the girl who never shared the Lincoln Logs?  The most important lesson I ever learned in school is that the world is not fair.  Because of this we have created our government.  The police, the courts, and our lawmakers are collectively the kindergarten teacher of the adult world.

Just like that teacher of long ago, the government gives all of us unalienable rights and the freedom to live autonomously, within certain boundaries.  Back in grade school we were allowed to have net things like cookies and milk, story time, and show-and-tell, but we also had to clean up our crumbs, be quiet during the story, and keep our hands to ourselves.  We could do whatever we wanted, as long as we didn't bother someone else.  That same doctrine holds true in adult life as well.  As citizens of the greatest democracy in the world, we are given both individual liberty and the personal responsibility to regulate that liberty for the preservation of the common good.

The United States is governed by a system that was established over 200 years ago.  Many things have changed since the Constitution was signed by the fathers of our country: Technology has taken the world by storm, the crime rate is phenomenal, and drug abuse is rampant. Even fashion has, thankfully, broken new ground.  Some people, Like Schoenbrun, feel that America is unprepared for the perils of this new age. He feels 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. I disagree. The framers created a balanced system that allowed for complete freedom for all, yet also provided for the protection of every citizen. They even left us the ability to modify this structure, through laws and amendments, as if they knew that unidentified circumstances would eventually occur.  It is our responsibility to use the Constitution as it was intended to be used: as a framework of government that is continually updated and revised in response to the modern world, without changing the fundamental truths contained in the document.

To fully utilize the strengths of our government, every last one of us needs to be active in it somehow. Being active is as easy as voting every November, or as complex as running for President, and it is the most important duty we have as Americans. Schoenbrun says that 'balancing individual rights and the welfare of the community should be left to the police and the courts', but I do not fully agree with that statement.  We, as United States citizens, have a personal responsibility to help balance those factors. Often times we excel at this responsibility, as is evident by several people I know in my hometown. My youth group serves food at the homeless shelter regularly, my school is currently collecting winter clothing for the needy, and my mom has adopted a family for Christmas. We can be considerate of those around us, and in turn greatly influence the welfare of the community. Of course, we will occasionally go astray--someone will color outside of the lines--and then the police and courts should intervene for the benefit of society at large.

Many people fear government involvement in our personal lives, but I feel that moderation in regulation is the key to balancing individual rights and the common good. Consider the issue of gun control. One popular slogan for some political activists is: 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people'. This is true. The guns themselves are not to blame for the injuries they inflict, and everyone does have the right to bear arms. Everyone also has the liability to bear arms responsibly, however. Some people apparently forget the latter part of this setup, and that is why we do need some form of gun control in this country.  We should regulate who can buy a gun, and also what type of gun they can buy. This way the government is watching over us at all times, but we are bearing some of the burden as well.

Some regulation, such as gun control, does have the potential to go too far. The Gun-Free School Zones Act is an example of such regulation. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling against the act for a number of reasons. First of all, this act could possibly lead to a type of police state in this country. I realize that the law is designed to increase the safety of our citizens, but at what cost to our freedom?  It simply does not affect enough people to justify a federal law being passed.  I think it could be more effectively regulated at a local level. Secondly, would it really stop guns from reaching schools? Maybe. If someone is desperate enough to carry a gun with them, however, whether for protection or intent to kill, I sincerely doubt if a weak law like this one would hinder in the least.  Once again each individual has the ultimate responsibility for his/her own actions. We must all exercise self-discipline.

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.  Is it coming back to you yet?  “Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody. Wash your hands before you eat.  Flush...”  Sometimes it is the simple things in life that are the hardest to master.  Having the responsibility to control yourself and look out for those around you at the same time is just one example. It is not hard, however, and I know it can be done--because I learned all about it in kindergarten. Just remember that the world doesn't really change when we grow up; it only looks different because we are taller.

Molly McGlone, Rockridge High School, Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Personal Liberty Vs. Common Good

 

Webster's New World Dictionary defines Liberty as 'the limits within which a certain amount of freedom may be exercised', and 'the sum of rights possessed in common by the people of a community, state'.  Liberty is a word which has always given and continues to give inspiration.  But it is not always clearly understood that liberty is a discipline as well as a privilege. This discipline requires taking personal responsibility for one's actions so that those actions are not harmful or detrimental to others.

The citizens of this country do not know what liberty is really about, and how much it has cost this country. When the pilgrims first came to America, many died before reaching land. When they fought for their liberty in the Revolution, many people died.  America has been in many other wars since this. When considering limiting personal freedoms, it is important to remember that liberty has a high price tag and must be protected.

Liberty is defined by the expectations of the citizens of this country.  How personal freedoms are perceived has changed and continues to change. 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.

Simply making and enforcing laws cannot solve all of society's problems.  Everyone will fall victim to illness, accident and misfortune at some point in their lives.  At times, these incidents may be their own fault, and at other times another is to blame.  However, government cannot be expected to be there to save them when something goes wrong.  Everyone must accept responsibility for their own lives and learn to solve their own problems instead of expecting the government to solve problems for them.  People find ways around laws.

Our country currently has a 'victim mentality'. Any given person is discriminated against because they are male or female, fat or thin, old or young, gay or lesbian, and on and on. They are all a so-called 'victim' of something or other.  However, many would say that the government should make laws which offer protection for them. Others are of the opinion that each person should take responsibility for situations that they can control and not expect the government to make everything right for them. Criminals also claim to be victims of 'the system', of poor upbringing.  This is a perfect example of a lack of personal responsibility.  When people place the blame for their actions on someone else, or on society in general, this allows them to escape their responsibilities. The government assists in this by enacting too many laws that protect the criminals. Convicts are allows to bring frivolous lawsuits which tie up our legal system. Attorneys are provided free of charge. Those who receive the death penalty are entitled to file appeal after appeal and pile up expenses sometimes into the millions of dollars which must be paid by taxpayers. The only person without benefit of the law in these cases is the victim of the crime.

Our legal system has also contributed to the loss of personal responsibility.  People now believe there should be a legal remedy when anything bad happens in their lives, whether an accident or injury, or a dispute with a neighbor.  In the past, when a person tripped and fell down on the sidewalk, they would have felt embarrassed and would have taken responsibility for their own misfortune.  Today, this person is likely to hire an attorney who will recover their medical expenses and give them something for pain and suffering at the expense of the property owner.

The welfare system has totally failed. Giving more money to people is not going to help. Getting them jobs, and helping them stay on them will help them. The welfare system has caused generations of people to become dependent on the government for the necessities of life. This, in turn, creates a burden for the rest of society to bear. When our country was young, families took care of each other.  When a neighbor was in need, the other neighbors helped them get back on their feet. When the government stepped in, they eliminated this example of personal responsibility and created a dependency in its place.

These examples prove the point that liberty is a discipline as well as a privilege.  Unless we take personal responsibility for our actions, we diminish the liberties and freedoms of everyone.

Jessie Veit, Newell-Fonda High School, Newell, Iowa

A Delicate Balance

 

When the founding fathers framed the government of the United States, they did so with the common good of the community in mind. The Bill of Rights was added only after the public demanded that they have personal rights. They lived in a time when communities were small, North America was largely underdeveloped and there was plenty of room for everyone. Individual rights held lesser importance because anyone who wanted personal freedom could simply move beyond the frontier, away from civilization and do as they pleased.
  

Today, the population of the United States is denser. It is impossible to escape coming in contact with large numbers of people. Now, the actions of the community affect the lives of every individual. To keep from infringing on the rights of the individual, elected officials in congress must keep a balance between personal liberty and the common good. The safeguard of the courts and police are not enough to ensure that the common good is looked after while individual liberties are preserved. It is the job of the police to enforce laws and the job of courts to rule according to laws, even when they seem unfair. Lawmakers must look at both the community and the individual when writing laws.
  

In the case of Gun-Free School Zones, the courts chose to side with individual liberty and the right of commerce. The law stated that guns would not be allowed within one thousand feet of schools. The court declared the law unconstitutional because the law would interfere with commerce. In an effort to preserve a small individual right, the courts undermined the common good. The law could have save lives and made schools a safer place, but instead gun dealers will make more money and citizens will be free to have guns wherever they please.
  

In many cases, personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Smokers being considerate of other people could find private place to smoke and eliminate the need for laws concerning smoking public. Responsible parents could protect children from pornography. The major argument against gambling is that when a person loses large amounts of money, it hurts his family. But gambling can be a harmless way to have fun when responsible people participate and lose only what they can afford. Many large industrial companies make thousands of dollars, but do so by polluting the air by burning coal and by polluting the water by dumping wastes in rivers and lakes. The technology to reduce air pollution now exists, and there are safe ways to dispose of solid industrial waste. If these companies were responsible, laws mandating smog levels and toxic emissions could be eliminated. Being considerate of other people’s rights can solve the problems concerning individual liberty.
  

Laws requiring seatbelts and helmets are unnecessary. Laws against victimless crimes are a nuisance to citizens. These laws violate personal liberty. Laws are only necessary when the action harms another person. Adults do not feel that they need to be protected from themselves.
  
Some actions of the government violate the common good. Failure to regulate genetic engineering is one example. Companies such as Monsanto have been changing the genes of the foods. Failure to regulate these changes in genes could have serious consequences. If alteration makes crops weak against certain diseases or makes certain weeds resistant to herbicides, the national food supply could be wiped out in a short period of time.
  

One can see the ill effects of taking either the common good or personal liberty to an extreme. Communism is a government based on the idea that the common good is mot important and people’s individual rights are sacrificed. People with little or no freedom are rarely happy. To have only individual rights and no concern for the common good is anarchy. People need some laws to govern them and keep order. Some balance must remain between the two for this country to have an effective and fair government.
  

Balancing the rights of its citizens is the job of the government, but electing its government is the duty of every citizen. It is up to each citizen to be responsible and elect competent officials. It is also the job of the citizens to stand up for their individual rights while respecting the rights of others and looking out for the common good. Only through the personal responsibility of each citizen can this country be strong.
Patrick Karcher, McLeansboro High School, McLeansboro, Illinois      

Responsibility Comes From Within

Responsibility comes from the individual. In my case it is a way of life that my family and friends have given to me as a gift, a by-product of my upbringing. Parents hope responsibility will bring the good out that each of us holds inside.

Living and growing up in a small community, I consider myself lucky to know my neighbors and call them friends. From each of my friends, neighbors, and family I find strength, goodness, and the encouragement to make responsible choices; choices that effect my life and the lives of others in my community.

This was the basic premise of our founding fathers attitude. When they wrote the constitution they put great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as their 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. A wall of bricks is only as strong as the first row of bricks that are laid straight and strong. I feel that my founding fathers believed in the good of the common man and built that into the first laws that were written in this land. These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing. We were a country of small communities; communities consisting of good men and women, being strong in the beliefs of goodness and individual responsibility. I believe that still exists today and that my community, family, friends and neighbors will make the right choices to protect and serve this community so that we might all exist in harmony and perform our daily chores of living.

In all systems there are weaknesses and holes that allow those who are familiar and informed, to use the system against the community. No one, be it the police or courts, has the right to abuse the rights of the people. People go to the polls and vote for men and women who have campaigned for justice, and the right to live and function as free men without fear; fear of reprisal and persuaders from street gangs and violent individuals who feel that they are above the law. When people vote they pick people that are suppose to help persuade and argue for the communities’ sake. We determine how hard our politicians are really fighting for us.

Personal responsibility and the common good seem to go hand and hand. Without responsibility there is no order in the community and it falls apart. To ensure the common good there has to be personal responsibility.
Benji Lehman, Harrisburg High School, Harrisburg, Illinois

The Restrictions Of Liberties

We live in a special country; a country in which each and every one of us has the freedom to chose our individual destiny. We have the freedom to do with our lives what we will. However, with the increase of radical and even fanatical philosophies, some of these freedoms are being taken from us. When personal liberties are restricted, it is the common good that suffers.
   

In July of 1996, Roy Platt filed a lawsuit against his neighbors and the owner of his condominium. He did not sue them because they broke the law. He sued because he did not like what they did. The owner did not ban smoking in the building, so his neighbors smoked. Rather than move, Mr. Platt decided to attack a policy that he didn't like. If Mr. Platt was responsible like his neighbor, he would have found an apartment that had a smoking policy with which he agreed. It would be absurd for his neighbors to be found guilty for exercising their freedoms.
   

The government of the United States believes that they should regulate smoking. They have already made it illegal to sell tobacco products to minors. This has not completely eliminated smoking by children, so they have decided to impose a special tax on tobacco to dissuade these purchases. How can the government believe that raising prices will only hurt the children who wish to smoke? Are they so ignorant as to believe that the adult who wishes to smoke legally will be unaffected? It is illogical to punish everyone for the mistakes of the few. Those who smoke chose to do so. Raising the price of tobacco by raising taxes is ridiculous; it makes it exceedingly difficult for those who can barely afford to smoke to do so.
   

There are some who believe that second-hand smoke endangers their health. They wish to ban smoking everywhere. Some states have even passed laws making it illegal to smoke in many, if not all, public places. They wish to take rights away from business owners. Business owners used to have the right to choose whether or not to discriminate against smokers. Now they have no choice; they must force smokers to conform or deny them entrance into their businesses.
   

The argument could be made that smokers have the right to choose whether or not to smoke, so they have no right to complain about these laws. Those who make that argument rarely consider the reverse: why should smokers have to complain about unfair laws? Would it not be more prudent to make the anti-smokers chose whether or not to be in the company of a smoker? If they dislike it, they should be responsible enough to leave.
   

We live in one of the few countries in the world where the minority is protected from the majority. The founding fathers knew the benefits of such a system, and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to establish one. If they had foreseen the developments that society would make in the hundreds of years since, they would not have changed a thing. To do so would be to compromise the fundamental principals of freedom that this country is founded upon.
   

The aforementioned Constitution is a wonderful document. It has not stopped working since it was signed. This is the great thing about the Constitution; it establishes a set of principles, and these principles can govern almost any questionable issue. It has remained the same document, yet its interpretation has changed with the times. The interpretation is and should be left to the courts to decide. The courts were established by the Constitution itself in order to interpret and judge any and all laws.
 

This power of the courts was recently demonstrated when they overturned the Gun Free School Zones Act, 'which [made] it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school'. This law, while being beneficial to the good of the community, was unconstitutional. If the courts were to have allowed that law to remain in place, what would stop them from allowing any other unconstitutional law to remain? Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution.
   

In the next few years, we will witness an increase in challenges to personal liberty, the Constitution, and freedom itself. Politicians and our elected officials cannot be trusted because they are easily swayed. Faith must be placed in the court system that they will hold true to the founding father's vision of a country where every individual is free. In this country, the good of the community is best preserved by protecting the rights and liberties of the individual.
Aaron Traffas, Medicine Lodge High School, Medicine Lodge, Kansas

Selected essays from the same 2005 Contest

A Delicate Balance

In order to obtain a balance between individual liberty and the common good, everyone must accept personal responsibility, cooperate with others, and keep his government in check.
 

Defining key terms helps with understanding the problem. One key term, individual liberty, can be described as the rights possessed by the individual which allow him to exercise his freedoms. The “common good” simply means protected individual liberty. Personal responsibility is the duty of an individual to do what is right. The last key term, scarcity, is used to describe an inadequate supply of something.

Individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset. Dictators throughout history have determined that, with individual liberty, the masses are a threat. Though liberty is possessed in the individual, it is a uniting force. The dictator must make the citizens dependent on him, which means he must take away their dependence on each other. The dictator begins giving free handouts, such as food and money. He gains followers, and speaks about bringing peace and ending poverty, so his support continues to grow. Because of the free handouts, individuals no longer worry about a crucial element for unity in a society—scarcity. Scarcity prevents individuals from being self-sufficient, and forces them to interact, cooperate, and compete. But, with free handouts, nobody needs to worry about going without. People stop depending on each other, and begin relying on the provider of the handouts.

The dictator then takes control of all property, under the pretext of evenly distributing it to everyone. Without private property, individuals have little consequence for their actions, which destroys most feelings of responsibility. The dictator also changes the way in which individuals are paid for labor. Giving everyone equal incomes may sound like a noble idea, but it is actually quite destructive. When everyone earns the same amount of pay, no motivation exists to advance or excel. Anyone trying to stop these changes from happening is labeled a traitor. The dictator declares before the public that everything is for the “common good,” and all who do not support it should be severely punished.
 

So how does one prevent this from occurring? No one can stop it alone, but the cooperation of many accomplishes much. Everyone needs to accept personal responsibility. The first step toward obtaining this goal is to put more restrictions on welfare. Many individuals on welfare today do not need it, and are taking advantage of the system. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. With reform to the system, these problems can be reduced. For example, when individuals are making little income, the welfare benefits are large. But when the individual aided receives an increase in income, his benefits are cut. This may make sense, but with the decrease of aid the individual is not much better off than when he was making a smaller salary with more benefits. He is then forced to spread his own money further in order to compensate for the missing aid. A change needs to occur so that individuals receiving aid can receive an adequate amount until they are fully independent of the aid they are receiving. This should shorten the amount of time an individual will need to receive aid, and lessen the dependence of individuals on the government. 
 

Government spending also needs reformed. The government claims not to have enough money for important programs, yet spends money on unnecessary projects. The government should not spend tax dollars on public recreation; that should be the job of the community. If having a park is important to the community, it should take the responsibility to make one. If it wants a swimming pool, then it should see that one is built. The government could offer loans for areas that cannot afford to do this, but it should not have the authority to throw tax dollars at what the people can do on their own. Preventing this would increase responsibility on the part of the individual or community, and lessen dependence on the government.
 

Another area in need of reform is the income tax system. The original purpose of income taxes was to help pay the expenses of World War II. But after the war was over, the government decided to keep this tax. The current system gives little incentive for individuals to work harder. People who make more are taxed more, while individuals who make less are taxed less. It sounds like this system should work, but it still reduces the desire of an individual to excel. Taxing everyone a flat fee also causes problems, because it hurts the poor and benefits the rich. But a change is necessary in which an incentive exists for individuals to work harder without fear of being taxed more.
 

The process of putting this plan into action is simple: Inform others to make change. It is as simple as telling friends about the changes that need to be made, and having them pass these ideas on. With increased public support for these actions, the next step will be natural: Contact senators and representatives regarding these issues. When bills are introduced into Congress, these individuals vote on them. Therefore they are essential for the plan’s success. But be sure to watch for government interventions, such as filibusters or rider bills. Filibustering is an action where a bill is literally talked to death, in order to prevent it from becoming law. Rider bills are unfavorable bills attached to other bills more likely to be passed into law. These can be very dangerous.
 

After the plan is implemented, individuals should accept personal responsibility in everyday life, and depend less on the government. This protects individual liberty, which defends the common good. One possible drawback is that individuals still refuse to accept responsibility. But with less government support, these individuals would only be hurting themselves by their decision. When everyone accepts personal responsibility, the balance between individual liberty and the common good is discovered.
Joshua Spencer, Kinsley High School, Kinsley, Kansas 

Teamwork

The issue of personal responsibility and individuality has always been in contrast with that of the common good of society. This is not only an issue that we deal with today among each other, but one that people have been dealing with since the Roman Republic. At the time of the Roman Republic they promoted a system of common good, which meant to do what was best for society. Another term would be civic virtue; it was used in the Roman times and still means that a person sets aside personal interests to promote the common good for others. So the Founders of the Constitution saw and learned from examples from the Roman Republic and examples of the French that the government should be based and organized to promote the common good. James Madison, known as the Founder of the Constitution, understood the importance of civic virtue but he knew he had to modify it in America. He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest. But each could contribute to the general prosperity of the community. At the same time Madison realized that all people were not going to agree with civic virtue or common good. If that was so there would be no reason to have an active government. The result is that you have to see what is most important to you.

The Constitution and the federal government give us many things to aid and give us freedoms. But sometimes those aids and freedoms are misused. I am 17 years old and I have a part time job at a grocery store stocking and bagging groceries for people. I have worked there for almost 3 years and I still make minimum wage which is $ 5.15. Every week I get my weekly pay check which has money taken out to go towards various programs and aids for those who are in need of help. It makes me proud to know that I am helping people who aren’t able to work themselves, because of illness or injury etc.  But when the money that is taken out of my check goes to people who are just too lazy to work and receive aid from the government, I’m not happy to say the least. Because while I’ve worked in the grocery store for the last three years on the weekends, I have seen people come into the store with food stamps, and WIC, various aids that government provides with taxpayers money. People I know and are just to lazy to work and fake an injury so that they can come into the store and buy 250 dollars worth of food and then I have to go place it in their new 2005 truck. That is not right but the government can’t catch all the people who steal themselves pay checks from the taxpayers such as me.

But then it just goes back to the beginning back in the Roman times when way back then they worked for the common good. We are given examples in the worlds and history’s past that give up there own individual interests so that others can live in common good. The probably the biggest scarf ice for the common good is that of Jesus. He gave his life so that every person who lives can have a chance to go to heaven after death. Of course in this case just as others in history people do not obey the laws that give the outcome of common good because  their own individual interests get in the way of the common good that was intended for by the act.  I believe that for the most part that in today’s society  the common good is achieved for the most part. You know there are always going to be people who get by or cheat the government but the people who need aid and the programs like food stamps usually need them.

I am a basketball player at my school and there is nothing better from an individual standpoint than a 25 point game, but a lot of times you as an individual have to sacrifice the 25 point game so that the team as a whole can win the game. Just like in basketball, the way the word team is used it can also be used when saying that about America. If America works together like a team the common good will be achieved and the country will exist in a more unified way.

Chris Carney, Camden Central High School, Camden Tennessee

Freedom Versus Equality

Lawrence Reed once 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.” After reading this quote there are a few things to think about. First, are Americans equal?  Yes and no. Second, are Americans free? Yes.  Americans are free but with that freedom they give up a certain amount of equality.  Americans are not equal in the sense that they all have the same incomes and all live in the same social class; rather they are equal in the sense that they all have the same opportunity to make something out of their lives.  Americans are equal in a way that they all live and work under the same set of rules and guidelines. 

In this country it is the people who run the economy, and it is the people who make up the millions of different jobs.  It’s the individual person’s choice which jobs they choose to pursue.  Even if they can’t be successful in that job, their next selection and their selection after that is also their choice.  So if a person chooses to become a doctor, they will make a higher amount of money than a teacher, but they may not be as happy if they just choose the job for the money.  In this society, it is the less advantaged person who wants the equality.  The well off don’t want everyone to rise to their status because they like having something over someone else.  The lower class strives to be in the middle class, and the upper class strives to keep their position at the top. The middle class strives not to drop to the lower level but to inch their way to the top.  They know that if this were a truly equal country, they wouldn’t have the ability to gain more.

In a communistic country it is believed that a country should be a classless society.  It is also looked upon that the more mediocre you are the better off you will be.  People who strive to excel are punished or looked down upon.  They also believe that every person has an equal right to economic goods, but that couldn’t be farther away from what is believed in America.  Everyone has an equal right to be poor or to have loads of money; everyone also has the right to live in a house or a box.  No matter what happens to a person, it is largely their independent choices that make up their life. They have that freedom and share that equality with every American. Therefore, Americans are happier living in a country with huge mansions overlooking the lake and huge cities filled with thousands of homeless people than they would be if America had everyone living in one class where everyone has the same amount, and no one is better or worse off than anyone else.  No one can be blamed for this because people have a natural greed to always want more and to not lose what they have already worked to gain. There is only one place where all Americans will be truly equal and that is in death. After you die it does not matter how much money you had or where you lived, the only thing that matters is that you are dead, and you are no better or worse than the guy in the cemetery next to you.

People would rather live in this country, even though it is not equal to all, rather than give up what they have or what they are working for.  That is why America is one of the strongest countries in the world; we let the people decide and then give them what they want.  Not every country is designed to work like this, and if the people are not accustomed to the freedom, they will be angered by the inequality.

Justin Reiter, Newell-Fonda High School, Newell, Iowa

We Are Responsible

Some would say that liberty is our constitutional given right, and that it should be preserved at any cost.  What about when our liberty affects the freedoms of others?  How do we keep everyone happy without taking away the rights of other people?  What can we do to make sure that our actions are for the good of everyone?

In order for the common good to prevail, each person needs to be able to support himself and not rely on the government for income or entertainment.  Currently, millions of people are living off of welfare and are demanding that the government create new parks and entertainments for the people.  The government’s income comes straight out of the pockets of the workers of America.  Its income is not limitless, but so many seem to think that it is.  Welfare is a good idea and it works, but maybe it works a little too well.

The government should not be responsible for keeping the masses entertained either.  Entertainment for the people should be bought or paid for by the people who want it.  The government should not have to pay to support and keep a public park just because the residents of a city think they need one.  If the people living in a city think they need something for everyone, then it should be directly paid for by everyone.  Is it really that hard to raise funds for something if it is for all of the people that live in that community?

Now, back to liberty and freedoms:  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.  We have a right to bear arms, but if one person bears arms and shoots another person, he or she is taking away the other person’s right to live or to be free from harm.

What we have to do, as citizens of the United States of America, is learn how to exercise our rights and keep them, but not to where they take away another’s rights.  This requires quite a bit of thinking on everyone’s part, but does one person really have the right to have more freedoms than someone else?

If we all try to keep from taking away the rights of others, then we would be doing our part in trying to make our nation one of the best places in the world to live.  It is better than most countries, but it could stand for some improvements in areas.

Many history teachers tell us if we learn the mistakes of past civilizations, we are more likely to succeed where they failed.  Though that is true in most cases, Rome and the United States have a creepy amount of occurrences in common.  Rome was the major super power of the time until its people started realizing that they did not have to work so hard, and that the government would help them get what they needed.  More and more of the population started living of the government, which caused stress on the government and the people who were actually working to support themselves.

Rome started taking more and more money away from the working class to give it to the ones who needed help, until the working class itself could no longer support itself.  When this occurred, Rome began to decline sharply; people could not or would not sell their goods in market places because they would not sell anywhere near their worth.  The economy failed and soon the civilization did, too.

Right now Americans are having money taken out of their wages to help pay for those who are out of work or are retired.  At first glance this seems okay, until we look at the sheer numbers of people that the working class is supporting.  This seems unfair to people, that even as they are working themselves to the bone to barely scrape by, others are lying around at home watching TV and eating government financed food.  If a person could truly not find a job, and was out looking for one nearly every day, most people would have no problem helping him out a little.  But right now, there are so many unemployed it’s mind blowing, and it seems as if most of them are not even trying to get back on their feet again.

It is our duty to protect ourselves and our future.  In order to do this, everyone needs to help out the government, and at the same time, make sure aid is given to those who really need it, not just the ones that think they do or just want it because they are lazy.  I do not know how to go about making everyone do their part, but I know that this is our responsibility as residents and citizens of the United States of America.

Kelly Lanier, Burlington High School, Burlington, Kansas

Show Me the Money

William Boetcker, Presbyterian Minister once said, “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich…You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." I]

I agree both with Mr. Reed’s statement that, “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,” and Minister Boetcker’s, cited above. Both make a strong case for the fact that people need to take personal responsibility for their lives. Those that refuse to take responsibility for their actions forfeit the right to complain about their plight. If they refuse to work for themselves and expect others to sacrifice their hard earned money to take care of them, they simply put themselves in bondage to their benefactors. 

Two parts of Reed’s statement need to be examined. First, “If people are free, they will not earn equal incomes.” When he says this, he is referring to people’s ingenuity. People, by their very nature are made differently. Some are gifted with the ability to draw. Some are gifted with the ability to speak eloquently. Still others are gifted with the ability to mediate conflict. Everyone has different gifts. That is what makes us unique as a species.

That being said, there are some gifts that society values more than others. For example, someone could be a gifted basket weaver. They could know how to weave baskets better than anyone in the world. However, that is not a talent that is in demand, whereas someone who was a talented public speaker may be requested to use his or her gift more often. The issue isn’t the amount of talent; it’s a matter of demand. People need public speakers more than they do basket weavers. Because of this, more money would be given to the person who could speak well, not weave well. When something is in demand, people can charge a premium for it. It’s the very principle of supply and demand. Because of the fact that the public speaker will be called upon more often than the basket weaver, the public speaker will make more money. Because these people are free to use their gifts for profit, they will not have equal incomes.  

The second part of his statement says, “conversely, show me a people who have equal incomes and I will show you a people who are not free.” From this statement we can infer that he is talking about a government that has price controls and income limits. Put simply, he says, show me people who all earn the same, and I will show you people with restrictions and a government imposed equality, not freedom. This “equality” marginalizes people who truly are talented and who work hard by rewarding those who don’t even try. When standards are lowered, this fosters an environment in which talent is sacrificed for self-esteem, but in the end neither results. We are left with a society of people that are not motivated to reach their fullest potential, and others who remain disgruntled. 

The human mind cannot and should not be contained. Because we have ingenuity and problem solving skills, we need to be able to pursue our ideas. As history has shown, when the progression of human ideas and experimentation comes to a halt, so does society. Nowhere is this seen better than in Reed’s own example of Rome.  He talks about Emperor Diocletian and his “Edict of 301”, which put wage and price controls on everything. Chaos ensued and prices skyrocketed. The former prosperous markets in Rome were no more, because people were not going to sell their goods for unreasonable prices. To further perpetuate the quest for ‘equality’ the government took over the grain industry and fed people instead of having them work for their food. They wanted everyone to be happy, and in the quest for happiness, took away the happiness of a few, and traded it for misery of all. Eventually, the government became the sole provider for most people, and everyone received the same thing. But by being equal the people had sold themselves into slavery. Not physical slavery, but slavery to the government. By demanding that government take care of them, they gave up their right to be free and instead were taxed to death by the government so they could afford the programs. Eventually, the government went bankrupt. By the time the Visigoths arrived, they were a welcome change from the government that was taxing them to death. Rome is a prime example of the second part of Reed’s statement. 

If we want to truly achieve equality, people must learn individual responsibility. We can conclude two things from the statement, “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.” First, the type of equality that should be valued is not economic. Rather, it should be equality of people to choose the destiny of their lives. Second, individual responsibility is needed so that people can make the most of themselves. People will not get far when they rely on others. Inequality in economics is a sign of a vibrant democracy. People are choosing what they like and don’t like, and freedom is being perpetuated. If we undermine the importance of inequality in our society, we will surly go the way of Rome. 
Faith Doyal, A. W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts, West Palm Beach, Florida

[i] William J. Boetcker, 1916. The place this quote was first published is not known, but over the years it has been incorrectly attributed to Abraham Lincoln. This quote has been validated by three sources: www.liberty-tree.ca and www.quotationspage.com. The third source is from Thomas F. Schwartz, Ph.D. of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. He is the director of the historical content for the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield, Illinois as well and established the Research Division in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. His acknowledgement of the Boetcker quotation can be found at http://www.illinoishistory.gov/facsimiles.htm.

Remember to answer the Questions Pertaining To The Required Reading before beginning your essay.

BACK