Download file to see previous pages...
Before the War on Terror caused by the September 11 attacks, there was the War on Poverty by Lyndon B. Johnson which justified Federal government action. But a minority view is that government action does not invariably lead to a loss of personal liberties as government actions are mostly on matters of national concern such as a faltering economy and the countrys physical security against terrorism.
People living in a modern and civilized society do so under the social contract which calls for the setting up of government system to maintain order and security for its citizens. In return for this, all people agree to surrender some of their rights implicitly in which originally free individuals give up some of their natural rights in favor of the social system or a political organization and be bound by the common laws and conventions being adopted. It is the very essence of a democracy in which people allow themselves to be governed to some extent but this does not necessarily equate into a loss of individual liberties.
On the contrary, people living in democratic societies enjoy more freedoms than they would otherwise experience in other forms of government. Only people with evil intentions such as terrorists and economic saboteurs have reason to fear government intervention in their lives because that is precisely why government was set up in the first place and its functions include the assurance to citizens of their safety and general economic well being. What most of the critics against increasing Federal government authority cite most often are the threats to personal freedoms in which government intrudes into personal lives. People who abide by the laws impliedly contained in the social contract therefore have nothing to fear. In other words, people can go on with their lives with remarkably little governmental
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
This essay answers the questions on how much power the government should have, for the purpose of securing individual safety, and what society would be like without a governing authority. It argues that the government should have enough power to secure individual safety, but not to the extent of sacrificing national safety, and that a society without a governing authority will have no social order, and hence, no enjoyment of social liberties.
From a couple of previous decades, it is evident that something could be incorrect with how we live our lives. This is because the pursuit for wealth acquisition turned out to be a top note virtue for many.
The republican form of the government is involved with the aspect of considering the opinions and ideologies of the majority within the society. Republican principles are aimed at establishing a consensus between a nation’s population and the laws used to govern that nation.
Two opposing points are always raised when it comes to abortion. First, that abortion is murder, and second, that a woman has a right to her own body. Both arguments come down to natural law and individual rights. Taking both sides of the coin into consideration, this paper limits itself to the concept of liberty and utilitarianism in looking at the abortion debate.
While on the one hand, an individual may deem maintaining one's own integrity his first responsibility, as espoused by Henry David Thoreau's essay, "Civil Disobedience" (James and Merickel, 2001). On the other hand, a man may be forced to undertake an unpleasant job, however, demeaning it may seem to be to the individual, as part of his role as a government representative.
Positive freedom-based theories point out a very obvious weakness of this position; namely, that one of the activities that most often limits the freedom of some individuals is the expression of freedom in others and as well as within themselves. This is a problem for political theorists because while it seems relatively straightforward to argue in favor of limiting political power in the name of liberty, it is not at all straightforward how to limit individual liberties in the name of, well, individual liberties.